Quantcast
Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
    1. Welcome to GTAForums!

    1. Red Dead Redemption 2

      1. PC
      2. Gameplay
      3. Missions
      4. Help & Support
    2. Red Dead Online

      1. Gameplay
      2. Find Lobbies & Outlaws
      3. Help & Support
      4. Frontier Pursuits
    1. Crews & Posses

      1. Recruitment
    2. Events

    1. GTA Online

      1. Diamond Casino & Resort
      2. DLC
      3. Find Lobbies & Players
      4. Guides & Strategies
      5. Vehicles
      6. Content Creator
      7. Help & Support
    2. Grand Theft Auto Series

    3. GTA 6

    4. GTA V

      1. PC
      2. Guides & Strategies
      3. Help & Support
    5. GTA IV

      1. Episodes from Liberty City
      2. Multiplayer
      3. Guides & Strategies
      4. Help & Support
      5. GTA IV Mods
    6. GTA Chinatown Wars

    7. GTA Vice City Stories

    8. GTA Liberty City Stories

    9. GTA San Andreas

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA SA Mods
    10. GTA Vice City

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA VC Mods
    11. GTA III

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA III Mods
    12. Top Down Games

      1. GTA Advance
      2. GTA 2
      3. GTA
    13. Wiki

      1. Merchandising
    1. GTA Modding

      1. GTA V
      2. GTA IV
      3. GTA III, VC & SA
      4. Tutorials
    2. Mod Showroom

      1. Scripts & Plugins
      2. Maps
      3. Total Conversions
      4. Vehicles
      5. Textures
      6. Characters
      7. Tools
      8. Other
      9. Workshop
    3. Featured Mods

      1. DYOM
      2. OpenIV
      3. GTA: Underground
      4. GTA: Liberty City
      5. GTA: State of Liberty
    1. Red Dead Redemption

    2. Rockstar Games

    1. Off-Topic

      1. General Chat
      2. Gaming
      3. Technology
      4. Programming
      5. Movies & TV
      6. Music
      7. Sports
      8. Vehicles
    2. Expression

      1. Graphics / Visual Arts
      2. GFX Requests & Tutorials
      3. Writers' Discussion
      4. Debates & Discussion
    1. News

    2. Forum Support

    3. Site Suggestions

The Occasional  Outlaw

Is RDO really that bad?

Recommended Posts

CosmicBuffalo

If you keep your expectations low, focus on weapons, like hunting,  and enjoy the occasional pvp, then you will be alright.   If you wanted missions to play with people, youre pretty much screwed. 

 

R* has gone full sith lord on micros in this game.  I guess so far nothing was done to players that hit the one decent glitch.  If they punish people, stick a fork in the game its done. Its already suffering from a scattered player base that isnt really sure exactly what R* is doing.   All we can really say definitvely is that adversary modes and micros are about all R* cares about.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ghoffman9
1 hour ago, GenericGTAO said:

If you keep your expectations low, focus on weapons, like hunting,  and enjoy the occasional pvp, then you will be alright.   If you wanted missions to play with people, youre pretty much screwed. 

 

R* has gone full sith lord on micros in this game.  I guess so far nothing was done to players that hit the one decent glitch.  If they punish people, stick a fork in the game its done. Its already suffering from a scattered player base that isnt really sure exactly what R* is doing.   All we can really say definitvely is that adversary modes and micros are about all R* cares about.

 

Low expectations is for games made by indie developers, low expectations are not for a multi-billion dollar company, not possible. They had like eight years to get their sh*t straight, and this is the end result? Unacceptable. Then to top it all off they are heavily trying to monetize what little we do have, it is like them taking their thumb covered in salt and just jamming and twisting it into an open wound. Games like Sea of Thieves, No Man's Sky, and Fallout 76 got torn to shreds for its lack of content, but like before Rockstar got a free pass pretty much. Other than a small few of outspoken people, they got a free pass for what three other games were not allowed to get away with, not without being raked over the coals first.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CosmicBuffalo
Posted (edited)
6 hours ago, Ghoffman9 said:

Low expectations is for games made by indie developers, low expectations are not for a multi-billion dollar company, not possible. They had like eight years to get their sh*t straight, and this is the end result? Unacceptable. Then to top it all off they are heavily trying to monetize what little we do have, it is like them taking their thumb covered in salt and just jamming and twisting it into an open wound. Games like Sea of Thieves, No Man's Sky, and Fallout 76 got torn to shreds for its lack of content, but like before Rockstar got a free pass pretty much. Other than a small few of outspoken people, they got a free pass for what three other games were not allowed to get away with, not without being raked over the coals first.

I dont know if any of the other games you cite have single player.  I know 76 doesnt.  Single player has allowed Red Dead Redemption2 to be successful.  Red Dead online is a free addon, but our expectations are high because GTAO, R* has not put out a game in 5 years, should have made RDO much more fair, fun, and content rich...instead R* just learned how to shut down glitches so they can try to force micros on everyone, and that is not how GTAO worked.  Certain dupe glitches lasted months, even now if you have a dedicated friend you can dupe cars.   These work arounds to grinding and more content at launch created a large dedicated base.  Right now, RDO will never attained this base, to attract causal players due to popularity which buy micros.  

 

TLDR; SP is worth your money, but RDO isnt above criticsim because R* hasnt made a game in over 5 years.

Edited by GenericGTAO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ghoffman9
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, GenericGTAO said:

I dont know if any of the other games you cite have single player.  I know 76 doesnt.  Single player has allowed Red Dead Redemption2 to be successful.  Red Dead online is a free addon, but our expectations are high because GTAO, R* has not put out a game in 5 years, should have made RDO much more fair, fun, and content rich...instead R* just learned how to shut down glitches so they can try to force micros on everyone, and that is not how GTAO worked.  Certain dupe glitches lasted months, even now if you have a dedicated friend you can dupe cars.   These work arounds to grinding and more content at launch created a large dedicated base.  Right now, RDO will never attained this base, to attract causal players due to popularity which buy micros.  

 

TLDR; SP is worth your money, but RDO isnt above criticsim because R* hasnt made a game in over 5 years.

Just like how Rockstar never gave single player a single DLC for Gta 5? Most of what they did for 5 years was sh*t out more cars, clothing, adversary modes, and reskinned free roam businesses than you can shake a stick at. Lowriders, Heists, and Doomsday heists were the only true DLC to online we ever gotten. Despite the game's overwhelming success, they still went with maximum profit for minimal effort (Just like they're doing for RDO). I been calling this out for years, but there was too much justifying and not enough criticizing. 

Rockstar cannot hide behind single player to justify a lackluster online mode. The online mode is built upon the singleplayer's foundation. They had plenty of time to add more missions, showdowns, and things to buy such as properties. They gave this below average thing you call an online mode the seal of approval cause they know there are lots of player with the fanboy mindset who will buy and/or justify anything they do or don't do. That is a problem itself, not drawing a line and throwing criticism where and when its needed leads to companies getting complacent, and when they get complacent they push the envelope even further to see what they can get away with.

 

When a company screws up and does something wrong, you criticize, not justify. People doing too much justifying and not enough criticizing is one of the major reasons why we're even here having this discussion. No matter how much this company seems to screw up, there are always those within this community defying logic and defending them, come hell or high water. RDO is only bad as it is cause Rockstar is simply replicating their GTAO formula, and that formula is Minimum Effort for Maximum Profit. If you keep accepting whatever they sh*t out, they will never feel the need to amp up the quality of the content. Rockstar needs to be raked over the coals for this or things are only going to worsen. The canary in the coal mine is already dead but there is still hope if people take off the beer goggles and call things for what they are.

 

Lastly, if Online is a "free addon" then why must you buy the single player component to get access to the online component? If its free I should be able to just download the online component correct?

Edited by Ghoffman9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4eyedcoupe

I find it crazy how many commercials I have seen on TV the past few days for this game when I had never seen one for it up until now.  They don't mention online at all, just story mode.  Also, game is on sale AGAIN $20 off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hotrats773

I'm probably one of the whiniest when it comes to some of the stupid crap in this game. That said, I still play every night. There's enough here to give me hope that it will eventually flesh out into something much better.

Also, there's a part of this that I can link to my initial attitude about griefing and PvP. For ME, there is very little griefing in this game. It simply isn't possible, at least to the level I experiencing in GTAV. When it does occur, I can handle my own sh*t and move on. The pace is much more realistic to me. It's really helped digest or process the balance between battling and doing fun stuff on my own.

 

One area that I think really needs improvement is this bullsh*t lip-service they pay to "making online a pleasing experience" for everyone. Clearly there is a need for more co-op type missions or activities yet they keep releasing PvP modes and gear objective toward killing other players. I think we have plenty of that as is. The stunning lack of creativity from R* is frustrating to see in light of their previous experience with GTA and online in general.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
rusbeckia
6 hours ago, Ghoffman9 said:

Just like how Rockstar never gave single player a single DLC for Gta 5? Most of what they did for 5 years was sh*t out more cars, clothing, adversary modes, and reskinned free roam businesses than you can shake a stick at. Lowriders, Heists, and Doomsday heists were the only true DLC to online we ever gotten. Despite the game's overwhelming success, they still went with maximum profit for minimal effort (Just like they're doing for RDO). I been calling this out for years, but there was too much justifying and not enough criticizing. 

Rockstar cannot hide behind single player to justify a lackluster online mode. The online mode is built upon the singleplayer's foundation. They had plenty of time to add more missions, showdowns, and things to buy such as properties. They gave this below average thing you call an online mode the seal of approval cause they know there are lots of player with the fanboy mindset who will buy and/or justify anything they do or don't do. That is a problem itself, not drawing a line and throwing criticism where and when its needed leads to companies getting complacent, and when they get complacent they push the envelope even further to see what they can get away with.

 

When a company screws up and does something wrong, you criticize, not justify. People doing too much justifying and not enough criticizing is one of the major reasons why we're even here having this discussion. No matter how much this company seems to screw up, there are always those within this community defying logic and defending them, come hell or high water. RDO is only bad as it is cause Rockstar is simply replicating their GTAO formula, and that formula is Minimum Effort for Maximum Profit. If you keep accepting whatever they sh*t out, they will never feel the need to amp up the quality of the content. Rockstar needs to be raked over the coals for this or things are only going to worsen. The canary in the coal mine is already dead but there is still hope if people take off the beer goggles and call things for what they are.

 

Lastly, if Online is a "free addon" then why must you buy the single player component to get access to the online component? If its free I should be able to just download the online component correct?

Sooo... when did you stop playing GTAO? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ghoffman9
1 hour ago, rusbeckia said:

Sooo... when did you stop playing GTAO? 

Haven't played it in months so you can take your little ad hominem and screw right off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
rusbeckia
9 minutes ago, Ghoffman9 said:

Haven't played it in months so you can take your little ad hominem and screw right off.

It was a simple question.

 

„Months“. So you basically were silent yourself for most of the lifespan of the game and want to give a homily to the community now. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ghoffman9
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, rusbeckia said:

It was a simple question.

 

„Months“. So you basically were silent yourself for most of the lifespan of the game and want to give a homily to the community now. 

Last time I logged on in earnest was in December to play around in the snow while it was there, it was a yearly thing and didn't want to miss it. Before that it was a good four or five months.

I been part of this forum for five years now, many users know very well what my opinions are on the game as I been stating them for years. Many would vouch for me, I was anything but silent. You joined two years ago, you know nothing about me.

 

Now how about you make this about the actual topic of this thread instead of derailing it into a discussion about me and my credentials? Ad hominems only look bad on the person using them. What it tells people is that you cannot debate the argument so you go for the person making the argument instead.

Edited by Ghoffman9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DrKrankenstein

although theres a lack of constant beta fixes, RDO isn't nearly as bad as being reviewed. heck i dare say most of the reviews are written by folks who only played a few hours.

 

they need to work on stability. less disconnects. and regular fixes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CosmicBuffalo

@Ghoffman9i give credit where credit is due and criticize where it seems necessary.  You can take a hard line, but I bought the ultimate to get more for online.  I have logged 11 real world days in RDO.  Did I get my money's worth?  Considering a 2.5 hour movie is $15 dollars.  I would say money well spent.  You are right about alot but your hard line stance that the single player purchase isn't justified for $60 with a free online addon because the online is lackluster seems to fail recognize that the single player is excellent.  And this discredits your entire stance because you arent acknowledging the clear success/amazing SP.

 

RDO is a free add on.  However, if you don't buy micros, you pay with your time, which I have always assumed is leisure time unless you are a tuber.  RDO was clearly not going to be as important as SP although I had hoped R* would nail it because I was sick of GTA and prefer Red Dead to GTA in most respects.  But I do love GTAO, just tired of the same old same old.  Which they have really have failed to meet my expectations for fairness and fun in RDO, but to me its still far better than GTA with MK2 flying around and passive mode.  To me the proof is come from the forums, all you have to do to see that is google "gta forums"  the results will show the most currently viewed forums threads in order.  They have been consistently since around October 2018, GTAO with usually around 90 members and 300-400 anonymous users, Red Dead Redemption 2 with usually around 150 total, and Red Dead Online with usually just around 65 total.  Its been like that since Red Dead came out and the months prior...what that says to me is, the single player is far more important.  Many people are content with single player.  I played it for 5 real world days, and I still have not 100% the game.  I actually created a thread and although this is kindve a biased forum towards GTA, where I asked are people planning to replace GTAO with RDO and the resounding answer was no, more people voted that SP was all they cared about.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Assblaster

I'd pay money to be able to make my own characters in SP (epilogue).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Labovasha
4 hours ago, GenericGTAO said:

@Ghoffman9i give credit where credit is due and criticize where it seems necessary.  You can take a hard line, but I bought the ultimate to get more for online.  I have logged 11 real world days in RDO.  Did I get my money's worth?  Considering a 2.5 hour movie is $15 dollars.  I would say money well spent.  You are right about alot but your hard line stance that the single player purchase isn't justified for $60 with a free online addon because the online is lackluster seems to fail recognize that the single player is excellent.  And this discredits your entire stance because you arent acknowledging the clear success/amazing SP.

 

RDO is a free add on.  However, if you don't buy micros, you pay with your time, which I have always assumed is leisure time unless you are a tuber.  RDO was clearly not going to be as important as SP although I had hoped R* would nail it because I was sick of GTA and prefer Red Dead to GTA in most respects.  But I do love GTAO, just tired of the same old same old.  Which they have really have failed to meet my expectations for fairness and fun in RDO, but to me its still far better than GTA with MK2 flying around and passive mode.  To me the proof is come from the forums, all you have to do to see that is google "gta forums"  the results will show the most currently viewed forums threads in order.  They have been consistently since around October 2018, GTAO with usually around 90 members and 300-400 anonymous users, Red Dead Redemption 2 with usually around 150 total, and Red Dead Online with usually just around 65 total.  Its been like that since Red Dead came out and the months prior...what that says to me is, the single player is far more important.  Many people are content with single player.  I played it for 5 real world days, and I still have not 100% the game.  I actually created a thread and although this is kindve a biased forum towards GTA, where I asked are people planning to replace GTAO with RDO and the resounding answer was no, more people voted that SP was all they cared about.  

You people really need to stop saying that.

RDO is NOT a free add on because that is factually incorrect, it's flat out idiotic too because it literally makes no sense. The fact that the back of the game boxes says multiplayer with the max player count directly cotradtics the claim, You don't do that with add-ons.  You are not buying two games for the price of one and you are not buying a sole single player game. What you are buying is red dead redemption 2 which has a single player and multiplayer component, it's all one game, the same game.

An "add-on" would be an expression that is added to a completed game, for example red dead redemption undead nightmare DLC or GTa O receiving the heist DLC. I've seen this cartoon logic of "free add" or "free-to-play-game"  get applied before with GTAO. Like that would make it's DLCs add ons on an add on, that would be nonsense.

 

Also this crap about constantly forcing people to acknowledge the "greatness" the single player needs to stop. It is such a juvenile handwave tactic especially when people are specifically talking about issues with multiplayer.

Besides not everyone cares about the story mode and no there is nothing wrong or irrational with that. There are legitimate reasons to think that single player alone was not worth full price.

 

Also you cannot just arbitrary claim that one mode is more important than another either based on forum activity unless you are talking about personal opinions of individual players. There is most likely going to be a repeat where Rockstar only produces additional content and major updates for just the multiplayer so it wouldn't make sense to say that because logically if something is more important you would give if more attention than the other. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CosmicBuffalo
Posted (edited)

@Labovasha Right...maybe you are new to gaming....but your understanding of pricing for a game like RDR2, overlooks the gaming market for SP player games such as....well nearly all of them...R* offers 3 prices.  SP regular $60.  What about all those preorder cases, that paid the same amount for a game that everyone paid that didnt preorder.  Did they pay for their hard cover or treasure map?  No, they got a bonus. A marketing tactic to induce a person on the fence to buy the same thing early. Online was not available day 1..so guess what, if you bought the game when most people did....you paid for single player.  With a free to play online game included to be released.  If you bought RDR2 just to play RDO...well you are most likely a child with no sense of value for $, if you bought GTAV for GTAO only, same reasoning.  Both online games, are free add ons with optional micro transactions and are separated entirely from any progress in SP....you pay for SP unless you are paying specifically for something in online. Just a bit of perspective as to current market competition, COD Black Ops 4, no campaign....I think...never played it, retails for $54 for essentially and online only game, this is the sad state of gaming and there are people going on about RDR2 is somehow overpriced, everyone is entitled to their opinion sure, but its not a valid criticism or argument to pretend $60 is not a fair price for just SP.    

 

The sad state of gaming where many people get a shell for free is something new for gaming.  R* has many GTA title games one with multi player prior to GTAV. No one bought any games before V for online, no one.  RDR had multiplayer.  I am sure you factored that in when you bought it just like the other 10 million.  When you were weighing your choices, I am sure you were like oh its say multiplayer...sold.  Nope, no one did that.  The only peope that can claim that they bought RDR2 and paid for online are people who bought ultimate. And the brainless children who bought to hang with their "online only" friends. 

 

TLDR, including something free is a marketing tactic that many companies do to get someone to buy a thing.  Luckily for us, R* still makes games.  Unlike fortnite, WOW...I think it free to play now "maybe its not),  and really the free to play market is massive... take your pick. 

 

Your post lacks an understanding of value and money at a very basic level. Could someone please remind the cost of RDR when it was released in 2010?  My recollection is $60.   I remember looking to buy it in 2014 and think 20 bucks, yeah I will wait, I have waited this long.  I got undead nightmare instead for $9.  I think I paid 5 or 6 dollars for RDR when it was released on backwards compatible.  I tried to Google it, but all I can find is the current price  

Edited by GenericGTAO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tha-Jamz
On 3/13/2019 at 1:04 AM, Jason said:

Is it fundamentally bad? Like, is it a genuinely bad video game? No, far from it as well really.

 

The negativity comes from the fact that it launched very barebones and now, nearly four months later, they've added very little to strengthen the experience. Then on top of that they've been extremely silent regarding major issues including things like the lobby situation (PvE/friend sessions), have continued to take swipes at hunting/fishing payouts and just in general not actually fixed a lot of the gameplay bugs the game has. It doesn't help either that we have no idea on what their long term plans are, every Newswire article is generally pretty vague when it comes to information and dates.

 

RDO still has a mad amount of potential. Like GTAO, there's nothing else like it on the market today and RDO is far from the point of no return, but at this point it feels like it might take a year to even get going.

 

And this is why i dont play anymore, and i wont be back till they implement private sessions.

Not waiting a year for this, Rockstar really blew it for me.

I think Rockstar is never gonna fix this game, i see update after update on GTAV with new content and RDO will bleed out soon enough...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pressure Drop
13 minutes ago, Tha-Jamz said:

 

And this is why i dont play anymore, and i wont be back till they implement private sessions.

Not waiting a year for this, Rockstar really blew it for me.

I think Rockstar is never gonna fix this game, i see update after update on GTAV with new content and RDO will bleed out soon enough...

 

Private sessions already exist if you have 1-3 friends. Start a story mission together and ignore the objectives, and go do what you want to do. For me, the private session is not really a big issue. Even if they implemented private sessions, you would probably be restricted as to what you can do in them, like in GTA.

 

I do agree with the sentiment that they will never fix it properly though. Every update will fix so many bugs, and add a plethora more. Issues that have been there since day 1 will still be there in a year, and they won't communicate about them in any way. (Except a copy pasted help article from the Support team, probably instructing you to clear your cache) Why do I think this? I have seen it, for the last 5 years in GTA. Cars are allocated to the wrong classes and have not been changed for years. The Blista Compact is in the Sports class for crying out loud, where it is one of the slowest cars in the class. The Moonbeam, which is bigger than a Ford Transit van, is in the Muscle class, not vans. Assisted Free Aimers can join Free Aim lobbies.

 

I tell you something... they added in the one of latest drip-fed updates the ability to remove props from the creator mode, such as lamp posts. The racing community shouted about wanting this for 4 years. There was petitions and heavy support on social media for it. IT TOOK THEM 4 YEARS TO ADD IT.

 

Nothing I have seen with the handling of RDO so far would lead me to believe that this will be any different. It's the same old sh*t that has the Strauss "I don't play video games" Zelnick signature written all over it. I just pray that it will be released for PC one day, only so that the FiveM guys can show us how it is done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Labovasha
5 hours ago, GenericGTAO said:

@Labovasha Right...maybe you are new to gaming....but your understanding of pricing for a game like RDR2, overlooks the gaming market for SP player games such as....well nearly all of them...R* offers 3 prices.  SP regular $60.  What about all those preorder cases, that paid the same amount for a game that everyone paid that didnt preorder.  Did they pay for their hard cover or treasure map?  No, they got a bonus. A marketing tactic to induce a person on the fence to buy the same thing early. Online was not available day 1..so guess what, if you bought the game when most people did....you paid for single player.  With a free to play online game included to be released.  If you bought RDR2 just to play RDO...well you are most likely a child with no sense of value for $, if you bought GTAV for GTAO only, same reasoning.  Both online games, are free add ons with optional micro transactions and are separated entirely from any progress in SP....you pay for SP unless you are paying specifically for something in online. Just a bit of perspective as to current market competition, COD Black Ops 4, no campaign....I think...never played it, retails for $54 for essentially and online only game, this is the sad state of gaming and there are people going on about RDR2 is somehow overpriced, everyone is entitled to their opinion sure, but its not a valid criticism or argument to pretend $60 is not a fair price for just SP.    

 

The sad state of gaming where many people get a shell for free is something new for gaming.  R* has many GTA title games one with multi player prior to GTAV. No one bought any games before V for online, no one.  RDR had multiplayer.  I am sure you factored that in when you bought it just like the other 10 million.  When you were weighing your choices, I am sure you were like oh its say multiplayer...sold.  Nope, no one did that.  The only peope that can claim that they bought RDR2 and paid for online are people who bought ultimate. And the brainless children who bought to hang with their "online only" friends. 

 

TLDR, including something free is a marketing tactic that many companies do to get someone to buy a thing.  Luckily for us, R* still makes games.  Unlike fortnite, WOW...I think it free to play now "maybe its not),  and really the free to play market is massive... take your pick. 

 

Your post lacks an understanding of value and money at a very basic level. Could someone please remind the cost of RDR when it was released in 2010?  My recollection is $60.   I remember looking to buy it in 2014 and think 20 bucks, yeah I will wait, I have waited this long.  I got undead nightmare instead for $9.  I think I paid 5 or 6 dollars for RDR when it was released on backwards compatible.  I tried to Google it, but all I can find is the current price  

This is really stupid.

You're entire angle is to basically fling ad hominems at people just for not being into single player as much as you. 

Judging by the way you write and the type of logic you are using I think I can safely say that I have definitely  played video games before you, possible before you were even born.

You insinuate that  people are  children solely based on the fact that they bought a video game for their own reasons is just ironic and I have a good sense of cash value, I'm just not that dumb. It is also perfectly valid to feel as if single player was not with 60$ alone. Not everyone gets wet in the pants just because a modern Rockstar game is masterbating its production values in front of their face.

The first sentence you typed is hard to follow  but what you said about the launch day content is silly. Are you trying to compare none standard edition game boxes to online? Special tickets are bonuses if you want to look at them that way but marketing tricks don't change reality. Rockstar could have literally said online was a free gift with a purchase of single player and that would just be a bold faced lie and the only way they could muddy that up is if they indicated this in the product description section on the box or whatever store that sold the game or made it an optional download.

Just because the multiplayer was not available at launch does not mean it was  a free add on, it was just delayed, that is it. The modern internet allows developers to do things like that. It's common to get portions of a product on official launch days, have perpetual BETAs, pay for alpha builds and so on. Again I suggest that you look at the back of the game box because it specifically tells you what the multiplayer component contains. They have to tell you what you are buying on the boxes. 

 

Again marketing tactics do not dictate reality, they are just what they are described as, tactics to market and sell something to you. 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CosmicBuffalo
Posted (edited)

Your reliance on logical argument does not replace or justify failure to understand basic economics.  Single Player is worth $60.  23 million people confirmed.  Number 1 selling game in 2018.  Those are facts.  You arent even using your alleged argument fallacies correctly.  But nice try.

Edited by GenericGTAO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lonely-Martin
9 hours ago, GenericGTAO said:

@Labovasha Right...maybe you are new to gaming....but your understanding of pricing for a game like RDR2, overlooks the gaming market for SP player games such as....well nearly all of them...R* offers 3 prices.  SP regular $60.  What about all those preorder cases, that paid the same amount for a game that everyone paid that didnt preorder.  Did they pay for their hard cover or treasure map?  No, they got a bonus. A marketing tactic to induce a person on the fence to buy the same thing early. Online was not available day 1..so guess what, if you bought the game when most people did....you paid for single player.  With a free to play online game included to be released.  If you bought RDR2 just to play RDO...well you are most likely a child with no sense of value for $, if you bought GTAV for GTAO only, same reasoning.  Both online games, are free add ons with optional micro transactions and are separated entirely from any progress in SP....you pay for SP unless you are paying specifically for something in online. Just a bit of perspective as to current market competition, COD Black Ops 4, no campaign....I think...never played it, retails for $54 for essentially and online only game, this is the sad state of gaming and there are people going on about RDR2 is somehow overpriced, everyone is entitled to their opinion sure, but its not a valid criticism or argument to pretend $60 is not a fair price for just SP.    

 

The sad state of gaming where many people get a shell for free is something new for gaming.  R* has many GTA title games one with multi player prior to GTAV. No one bought any games before V for online, no one.  RDR had multiplayer.  I am sure you factored that in when you bought it just like the other 10 million.  When you were weighing your choices, I am sure you were like oh its say multiplayer...sold.  Nope, no one did that.  The only peope that can claim that they bought RDR2 and paid for online are people who bought ultimate. And the brainless children who bought to hang with their "online only" friends. 

 

TLDR, including something free is a marketing tactic that many companies do to get someone to buy a thing.  Luckily for us, R* still makes games.  Unlike fortnite, WOW...I think it free to play now "maybe its not),  and really the free to play market is massive... take your pick. 

 

Your post lacks an understanding of value and money at a very basic level. Could someone please remind the cost of RDR when it was released in 2010?  My recollection is $60.   I remember looking to buy it in 2014 and think 20 bucks, yeah I will wait, I have waited this long.  I got undead nightmare instead for $9.  I think I paid 5 or 6 dollars for RDR when it was released on backwards compatible.  I tried to Google it, but all I can find is the current price  

That's just nonsense, lol.

 

Many players love online only gaming, many like story modes too. Many like a bit of both. If a player buys a game that offers online gaming, they're not necessarily a child with no sense of value for money, lol. That's just petty dude.

 

The game costs what it cost, both games are a part of that price, choose your pick. Many of that 23m bought the pre-order for online bonuses, many bought UE for the same reason, online perks, and didn't play or only had a look at story while awaiting their preferred area of RDR to be available, online.

 

19 minutes ago, GenericGTAO said:

Your reliance on logical argument does not replace or justify failure to understand basic economics.  Single Player is worth $60.  23 million people confirmed.  Number selling game in 2018.  Those are facts.  You arent even using your alleged argument fallacies correctly.  But nice try.

Single player is only worth it's price for those keen on single player. Yes, for you $60 for story may have been very worth it.

 

If you don't like single player gaming, then it might not be worth that much for single player alone to others. Many prefer online gaming and for them the $60 was value for them to buy the game for online gaming only. The value/worth is very subjective, you can't speak for everyone that bought RDR2/O and why.

 

23m copies sold doesn't mean 23m players loved/wanted story mode gaming, the pre-orders and day one physical UE editions, that could have sold out (did in my game store), are a part of that 23m, online bonuses could easily have been the appeal as there was incentives, as you showed, they marketed it so with those incentives to buy big or early regardless of which you prefered. The game was marketed to offer both on and offline gaming from before day one too.

 

Same for GTA V/O. I know I bought both RDR2 and GTA V for both online and story as I do enjoy the story modes. But online/online heists or crew play in GTA:O were promised long before I bought that on day one and that saw me buy with more anticipation for online. (Granted, RDRO hasn't kept my attention like GTA did, but GTA offered far more gameplay and far more choice while this game has been a farce of an online so far, IMHO mind you - Though there's time for that to change of course).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
El Diablo 702

There is still time for the online to improve but that time is passing by fast as players move on to other games.  Will they come back? We don’t know as it’s iffy for me unless they do something big.  As others have said gtao had way more at launch than this as far as game modes, lobbies, aim preferences, and who to play with. What this game needs is those options for player choice on those aspects we have been asking for other than pvp free roam, pvp modes only or get griefers coming at you while minding your own business that is getting old real fast for some of us. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tonko
On 3/16/2019 at 3:41 AM, Assblaster said:

I'd pay money to be able to make my own characters in SP (epilogue).

I'd pay money to be able to make my own character say few badass Wild West quotes instead of childlish emotes 🤑

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mad-Monkey_1st
11 minutes ago, tonko said:

I'd pay money to be able to make my own character say few badass Wild West quotes instead of childlish emotes 🤑

Id pay real money for a coop in single player where 3 mates could join in epilogue 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JumpingKentFlash
56 minutes ago, tonko said:

I'd pay money to be able to make my own character say few badass Wild West quotes instead of childlish emotes 🤑

Best thing is that we can soon BUY emotes. Like what the effin hell are they doing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CosmicBuffalo
7 hours ago, Lonely-Martin said:

That's just nonsense, lol.

 

Many players love online only gaming, many like story modes too. Many like a bit of both. If a player buys a game that offers online gaming, they're not necessarily a child with no sense of value for money, lol. That's just petty dude.

 

The game costs what it cost, both games are a part of that price, choose your pick. Many of that 23m bought the pre-order for online bonuses, many bought UE for the same reason, online perks, and didn't play or only had a look at story while awaiting their preferred area of RDR to be available, online.

 

Single player is only worth it's price for those keen on single player. Yes, for you $60 for story may have been very worth it.

 

If you don't like single player gaming, then it might not be worth that much for single player alone to others. Many prefer online gaming and for them the $60 was value for them to buy the game for online gaming only. The value/worth is very subjective, you can't speak for everyone that bought RDR2/O and why.

 

23m copies sold doesn't mean 23m players loved/wanted story mode gaming, the pre-orders and day one physical UE editions, that could have sold out (did in my game store), are a part of that 23m, online bonuses could easily have been the appeal as there was incentives, as you showed, they marketed it so with those incentives to buy big or early regardless of which you prefered. The game was marketed to offer both on and offline gaming from before day one too.

 

Same for GTA V/O. I know I bought both RDR2 and GTA V for both online and story as I do enjoy the story modes. But online/online heists or crew play in GTA:O were promised long before I bought that on day one and that saw me buy with more anticipation for online. (Granted, RDRO hasn't kept my attention like GTA did, but GTA offered far more gameplay and far more choice while this game has been a farce of an online so far, IMHO mind you - Though there's time for that to change of course).

Look, if want to play online only games, there are plenty of options.  GTAV and RDR2 are single player games.  The up front cost is not subjective....its objective.  New games cost money around $50-60 for high quality titles since around the mid 90s. 

 

If you only want to play online, and you bought RDR2, you are an illogical consumer.  GTAV, maybe you bit the bullet after the game was out and your "friends" got you to buy it.   Just because some players had a different motivation for buying the game, the product you bought is a single player with a free to play online game included.  If you never play single player, you by paid for it regardless.  The inverse is not true.  Meaning I bought the game for Single Player, never played online, I got what I paid for and I am out nothing.

 

This can be understood by the fact that online has optional microtransactions in the game. 

 

Only someone who wants something for free would fail to understand this.  Maybe R* could offer the online game free to play, but why should they, its their product.  I love that "online only players" have to pay at least upfront, because they are "forced" to keep the company afloat.  R* has employees that have lives and rents.  They make some great products.  They deserve to be paid.  They also deserve to be criticized for greed.  Whining and then having a failure to recognize reality means your complaint will fall on deaf ears and it should.   

 

For example, just because Fortnite has no up front cost doesnt mean RDR2 should not as well.  Fortnite is a shell and a fad. Hopefully the company will take all the money they are making and create a decent game in the future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lonely-Martin
2 hours ago, GenericGTAO said:

Look, if want to play online only games, there are plenty of options.

If a player wants to play GTA:O or RDRO, there is no other options, lol.

Fortnite, COD, or whatever aren't GTA/RDR, obviously. How else can one play GTA:O or RDRO without buying in, lol.

2 hours ago, GenericGTAO said:

GTAV and RDR2 are single player games.

And GTA:O and RDRO are online games. Choose what you prefer, single player, online, bit if both. The cost is the same regardless. Just makes it better value for money if you enjoy playing both.

2 hours ago, GenericGTAO said:

The up front cost is not subjective....its objective.

Obviously, the cost is the cost. But the value to a player based off of that up front cost is very subjective was my point. A player may feel the single player is worth that cost (you clearly do, which is fair enough). Another player might not enjoy single player but equally feel the cost is worth it for them to play online here. Some might think it's a bargain if they enjoy both, and another might think it's expensive based off of personal circumstances. All subjective. You can only speak for yourself as to weather the upfront cost offers value for money for you based of how you play or what mode(s) you enjoyed for that cost.

2 hours ago, GenericGTAO said:

New games cost money around $50-60 for high quality titles since around the mid 90s.

Just means we get more bang for our buck if we do buy a game offering both online and offline. It's still a choice for a gamer to make as to weather it's of value to them though.

 

Personally I'd prefer a price rise over microtransactions, but that's just my 2 cents.

2 hours ago, GenericGTAO said:

If you only want to play online, and you bought RDR2, you are an illogical consumer.

Why? If a player prefers online Red Dead and are happy to pay the upfront fee, why is that illogical? Do we have to play single player, lol. It's a package deal, buy in and enjoy what you like. R* offer that freedom of choice.

2 hours ago, GenericGTAO said:

GTAV, maybe you bit the bullet after the game was out and your "friends" got you to buy it. 

No-one got me to buy GTA V, lol. Don't be silly. I chose to buy it based off of what was advertised it'd feature (and reputation for me as I like R*'s games in general), like I do any game really. Online heists/co-op was a huge draw, that saw me buy earlier than usual as I wanted to enjoy story before focusing on online. Same with this RDR. I see what's on offer and make a choice. Pretty standard stuff. All subjective to me.

2 hours ago, GenericGTAO said:

Just because some players had a different motivation for buying the game, the product you bought is a single player with a free to play online game included.  If you never play single player, you by paid for it regardless.  The inverse is not true.  Meaning I bought the game for Single Player, never played online, I got what I paid for and I am out nothing.

If a player buys RDR they buy both story and online access. Can't access online without buying story, can't avoid buying online access by only buying story mode. Both come at one price of entry. The player chooses what they want to get from their copy freely. If you got your $60 worth from single player, good for you. But you can only speak for yourself as to weather it was of worth and if you're 'out nothing' or not. If a player buys this for online only and gets what they want, they're out nothing if they ignore story mode too.

 

An online only player could easily say the opposite in that online is what they paid for and story was a free bonus, lol. Neither are free, we buy both for one price.

2 hours ago, GenericGTAO said:

This can be understood by the fact that online has optional microtransactions in the game.

Not really. Online was offered without Microtransactions to begin with in the base price and they are optional. Microtransactions exist so the company can potentially continually profit and add more content. If they don't sell their quota, no DLC/additions. It's just a different way to add content but not split the playerbase too, RDR last and GTA IV have paid DLC, basically the same thing (recurring spending is recurring spending after all) and those were story and online additions. Besides, games are adding microtransactions to single player too, Gran Turismo Sport is one of the top of my head that does.

2 hours ago, GenericGTAO said:

Only someone who wants something for free would fail to understand this

I hope you aren't implying me here, lol. I'm always happy to pay for entertainment of value to me. Always have. And I'm not failing to understand. R*'s games that offer both online and offline give me good value personally, no complaints there. (GTA more than RDR so far, but early days yet).

2 hours ago, GenericGTAO said:

Maybe R* could offer the online game free to play, but why should they, its their product.

Never said they should. If at anytime I feel what's on offer isn't of value to me, I don't buy in.

2 hours ago, GenericGTAO said:

I love that "online only players" have to pay at least upfront, because they are "forced" to keep the company afloat.

I agree there. Whatever a player chooses to do with their copy, R* make theirs and more good games (for me) will come, hopefully. (Kind of funny to read here you say players pay upfront for online access yet elsewhere you say it's free, they're illogical, or bought for single player with a freebie attached, lol. This part highlights my points exactly - It's not free, lol).

2 hours ago, GenericGTAO said:

R* has employees that have lives and rents.  They make some great products.  They deserve to be paid.

Obviously they deserve to be paid, but the opinion they make great products is personal opinion as some don't enjoy these games from R*. A COD, Fortnite, or any other game company might get the same reaction from a fan of those too.

2 hours ago, GenericGTAO said:

They also deserve to be criticized for greed.  Whining and then having a failure to recognize reality means your complaint will fall on deaf ears and it should.

I don't fail to recognise anything here, lol. And agree, the greed should be criticised I feel, and I do. They went too far with this game, but that's subjective too as that's just my opinion (though nice to see I'm not alone of course). Each their own as some feel it's not an issue which is their fair opinion too.

 

(Loads there, had to split it up, apologies for that - Basically I disagree with it being free and can't see we will agree - No need to call gamers children through choosing their gaming in a game that offers that choice dude, its petty and very much no true).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tha-Jamz
15 hours ago, Pressure Drop said:

 

Private sessions already exist if you have 1-3 friends. Start a story mission together and ignore the objectives, and go do what you want to do. For me, the private session is not really a big issue. Even if they implemented private sessions, you would probably be restricted as to what you can do in them, like in GTA.

 

I do agree with the sentiment that they will never fix it properly though. Every update will fix so many bugs, and add a plethora more. Issues that have been there since day 1 will still be there in a year, and they won't communicate about them in any way. (Except a copy pasted help article from the Support team, probably instructing you to clear your cache) Why do I think this? I have seen it, for the last 5 years in GTA. Cars are allocated to the wrong classes and have not been changed for years. The Blista Compact is in the Sports class for crying out loud, where it is one of the slowest cars in the class. The Moonbeam, which is bigger than a Ford Transit van, is in the Muscle class, not vans. Assisted Free Aimers can join Free Aim lobbies.

 

I tell you something... they added in the one of latest drip-fed updates the ability to remove props from the creator mode, such as lamp posts. The racing community shouted about wanting this for 4 years. There was petitions and heavy support on social media for it. IT TOOK THEM 4 YEARS TO ADD IT.

 

Nothing I have seen with the handling of RDO so far would lead me to believe that this will be any different. It's the same old sh*t that has the Strauss "I don't play video games" Zelnick signature written all over it. I just pray that it will be released for PC one day, only so that the FiveM guys can show us how it is done.

I can agree with most of what you write here, the point is that even in Red dead 1 online you could start private sessions, its implementen in GTAV and Red Dead online 2 is build on the GTAV platform, but no private sessions ?

The online world could be a really great PVE part in this game and i think they are missing out on a big chunk of players without private sessions.

If they make a RDR3 in the future i will prolly buy it, but not the ultimate version like i did now because of the extra's i got for the online part.

But for the rest ? i wont buy any Rockstar game besides that anymore.

 

I didnt buy any EA games for a long time because it was al about the money instead of the players, and a lot of people reacted the same way, now they try to turn that around.

The same is going on now with Activision, they almost killed the Destiny franchise with their greed and Bungie cut themselves loose from Activision. (believe me it is noticable ingame already after Bungie made changes after that)

Rockstar showed me with the gold bars/store as first update and the lack of communication that they are walking that same road.

I think that after they find that they made enough money Rockstar will pull the plug instead of invest more in the online part of RDO, GTAV had many updates after the launch of RDO, this says enough....

 

I wish that all players would vote with their wallet in the future to make the gaming world healthy again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CosmicBuffalo
Posted (edited)

@lonely-martin I appreciate your effort, and it sounds like you wanted SP and Online.  But your concessions to the people that do not want SP games and only want online, is an opinion that pushes a non SP gaming future. @labovasha position that the price of RDR2 includes online, which is what you are arguing as well, but you are conceding that for you personally it was both, but you believe that many others may have wanted it just for online, could result in no SP games. 

 

But I know you have been critical of the online version of this game, just from reading the forums daily, and you are a great example of why you didn't get ripped off, but are extremely disappointed because your expectation were too high for the free to play companion game included with SP.  @labovasha has not made any such concession.  But by agreeing with people like him, the likelihood that GTAVI is GTAO2 only, a free to play micro transaction crap pile is very high. 

 

GTAV and RDR2 is the value you paid for,  its where the focus is.  The online versions of each game are shells.  They are persistent online games without all the npcs, story, details, and care/quality that's gone into the game you actually paid for.  R* could pump out these types of games probably 3 different versions a year.

 

@labovasha would be ready to serve up his credit card, apparently, and drop $60 dollars on 5 outfits and two new guns in each one of these steaming piles.  As long as he didn’t have to pay up front for anything, all good.  He wants everyone else to do the same.  R* could just degrade the map quality a bit and, viola, 3 steaming piles.  And that could happen, if the idea that SP is not what you paid for is accepted throughout the gaming community.   

 

Some people may have bought RDR2 to play both, but anyone who has been gaming understand the pricing model.  And that model is, new game from an established developer: $60 day one, could go on sale after a year.  RDR2 is already on sale which is actually kind of surprising, which leads me to my next point.  

 

GTAO is an anomaly, and it’s clear, RDO will never be able to touch it in micro revenue, because R* is forcing micros in the game and again trying to get everyone to buy into the SP.  Yet RDO is suffering from widespread criticism, for many different reasons, but mainly for the outrageous pricing and hunting nerfs i.e. the in-game ability to not have to buy micros.  And you alluded to this, but in a way I disagree with…there are plenty of options for games like GTAO and RDO....the games out there are just not that great or they are only great at one thing. 

 

ARMA is probably the easiest comparison to similar combat game with lots of vehicles, Fortnite a 3rd Person shooters is similar to GTAO with character customization and the combat is similar, but hardly any vehicles.  Plenty of online racers to the address the vehicle aspect.  There are loads of survival games, ARK comes to mind, that allow horses/mounts, and cowboyesque character creation.  WOW, similar in many respects, but has much more indepth progression and way different combat, used to have an upfront cost. I checked but you have to get a $15 a month subscription but there is no upfront cost.  And there are a ton of similar games, that just are just crappy cash grabs.  So while we are kind of held hostage to R*, we are not really. 

 

Especially, if they think selling $10, real world, worth of hats is disgusting. For a game not many people are playing, that has tons of problems, and is a shell of the SP.  Most people are going to just play something else.  Yes, it will be crappier...maybe it’s better and they lose loyal customers to a better gaming company.  Maybe it’s a free to play steaming mircotransaction pile that @labovasha loves.  I dont know.  Point is, GTAO is anomaly.  RDR2 will not reproduce similar results with RDO.  And that is going to make shareholders mad.  And if the consumers are screaming at the same time, focus on online that’s what I paid for, R* could start to create shells with no SP.    

Edited by GenericGTAO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lonely-Martin
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, GenericGTAO said:

@lonely-martin I appreciate your effort, and it sounds like you wanted SP and Online.  But your concessions to the people that do not want SP games and only want online, is an opinion that pushes a non SP gaming future. @labovasha position that the price of RDR2 includes online, which is what you are arguing as well, but you are conceding that for you personally it was both, but you believe that many others may have wanted it just for online, could result in no SP games. 

 

But I know you have been critical of the online version of this game, just from reading the forums daily, and you are a great example of why you didn't get ripped off, but are extremely disappointed because your expectation were too high for the free to play companion game included with SP.  @labovasha has not made any such concession.  But by agreeing with people like him, the likelihood that GTAVI is GTAO2 only, a free to play micro transaction crap pile is very high. 

 

GTAV and RDR2 is the value you paid for,  its where the focus is.  The online versions of each game are shells.  They are persistent online games without all the npcs, story, details, and care/quality that's gone into the game you actually paid for.  R* could pump out these types of games probably 3 different versions a year.

 

@labovasha would be ready to serve up his credit card, apparently, and drop $60 dollars on 5 outfits and two new guns in each one of these steaming piles.  As long as he didn’t have to pay up front for anything, all good.  He wants everyone else to do the same.  R* could just degrade the map quality a bit and, viola, 3 steaming piles.  And that could happen, if the idea that SP is not what you paid for is accepted throughout the gaming community.   

 

Some people may have bought RDR2 to play both, but anyone who has been gaming understand the pricing model.  And that model is, new game from an established developer: $60 day one, could go on sale after a year.  RDR2 is already on sale which is actually kind of surprising, which leads me to my next point.  

 

GTAO is an anomaly, and it’s clear, RDO will never be able to touch it in micro revenue, because R* is forcing micros in the game and again trying to get everyone to buy into the SP.  Yet RDO is suffering from widespread criticism, for many different reasons, but mainly for the outrageous pricing and hunting nerfs i.e. the in-game ability to not have to buy micros.  And you alluded to this, but in a way I disagree with…there are plenty of options for games like GTAO and RDO....the games out there are just not that great or they are only great at one thing. 

 

ARMA is probably the easiest comparison to similar combat game with lots of vehicles, Fortnite a 3rd Person shooters is similar to GTAO with character customization and the combat is similar, but hardly any vehicles.  Plenty of online racers to the address the vehicle aspect.  There are loads of survival games, ARK comes to mind, that allow horses/mounts, and cowboyesque character creation.  WOW, similar in many respects, but has much more indepth progression and way different combat, used to have an upfront cost. I checked but you have to get a $15 a month subscription but there is no upfront cost.  And there are a ton of similar games, that just are just crappy cash grabs.  So while we are kind of held hostage to R*, we are not really. 

 

Especially, if they think selling $10, real world, worth of hats is disgusting. For a game not many people are playing, that has tons of problems, and is a shell of the SP.  Most people are going to just play something else.  Yes, it will be crappier...maybe it’s better and they lose loyal customers to a better gaming company.  Maybe it’s a free to play steaming mircotransaction pile that @labovasha loves.  I dont know.  Point is, GTAO is anomaly.  RDR2 will not reproduce similar results with RDO.  And that is going to make shareholders mad.  And if the consumers are screaming at the same time, focus on online that’s what I paid for, R* could start to create shells with no SP.    

Oh, believe me. I have had many concerns that a GTA (or any quality R*) story mode could be scrapped in favour of these online games that the forgiving whales will throw money into. Shared those concerns many times in the GTA:O section too. And that would be a very sad day indeed that would leave a large hole in my gaming catalogue going forward.

 

And fully share with you just how RDRO won't top GTA:O in terms of revenue. But unfortunately it's just true that some don't care enough about story and will accept the poor online component more too. 

 

Such a waste of potential with this game, but your right, my expectations were too high. GTA proved so successful because it appealed to all styles of player where as this online is so much focused in herding us all in one session and too much emphasis on PvP too, I feel.

 

Believe me, I share your concerns and really do hope the criticism gets over to a point R* get their finger out and stop looking to pander to those they can fleece. It's a joke how this microtransactions era is killing gaming for me dude.

 

I just feel the price is the price and as there's no way to not purchase either without the other, we gamers can't choose. Possible R* fear story mode that they can't monitise this way selling so well, and online doesn't take off so they can nickel and dime us, lol.

 

Not just that though, my concerns go further with GTA at least with how it appealed to younger and younger players too. If they water it down anymore like GTA:O is compared to story, I'd be gutted really. Scary times indeed.

Edited by Lonely-Martin
Wording.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Labovasha
14 hours ago, GenericGTAO said:

Your reliance on logical argument does not replace or justify failure to understand basic economics.  Single Player is worth $60.  23 million people confirmed.  Number 1 selling game in 2018.  Those are facts.  You arent even using your alleged argument fallacies correctly.  But nice try.

You still are not making sense.

You just tied to use the sales as proof that single player was worth the 60$ price but you can't play online without buying the game.Even if you ignore how stupid it is to appeal to popularity when discussion a video game, your logic cannot work.

2 hours ago, GenericGTAO said:

@labovasha would be ready to serve up his credit card..

What was that?  You don't need to try and make assumptions about what I would do with my money or what I think.

 

How old are you, really?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • 1 User Currently Viewing
    0 members, 0 Anonymous, 1 Guest

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using GTAForums.com, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.