Online BETA

[kobzie_]

Why do I need to be paying for playstation plus to play red dead online when its still in BETA?

[DoctorMike]

Because, Rockstar! This “BETA” watermark is just an excuse for lack of content and everything else, yet it functions like a game that’s no longer a beta, you’ll need PSPlus, you can buy in game money with real life money, plus the game’s been out for quite a while

[Daleificent]

13 hours ago, kobzie_ said:

Why do I need to be paying for playstation plus to play red dead online when its still in BETA?

 

12 hours ago, DoctorMike said:

Because, Rockstar! This “BETA” watermark is just an excuse for lack of content and everything else, yet it functions like a game that’s no longer a beta, you’ll need PSPlus, you can buy in game money with real life money, plus the game’s been out for quite a while

Well... also because Sony and R* are not the same company. You're paying Sony to use their online service (PS+), you're paying R* nothing more then the cost of RDR2. (and mxt if you do that, I suppose.)

[-LN-]

Hmm. There are actually PS4 MP games that do not require PS Plus? I know that I never needed it on PS3, but I thought it was pretty much a requirement for any MP/online game on PS4.

[Foxwolfe]

Yeah they adopted the model around the PS4 launch I believe, very disappointing but from a business standpoint I can't blame them for not getting in on that Xbox Live money. Enjoyed it more when PS+ was a bonus and not a requirement though, shouldn't be forced to pay them to play f*cking P2P online games.

 

Yay greed!

[Karlitoz-E]

On 4/20/2019 at 10:08 PM, -LN- said:

Hmm. There are actually PS4 MP games that do not require PS Plus? I know that I never needed it on PS3, but I thought it was pretty much a requirement for any MP/online game on PS4.

You don't need it for free2play games

[Re-Dragon-Cro]

32 minutes ago, Karlitoz-E said:

You don't need it for free2play games

Yup, Warframe for example.(However interstingly on XB1 you are required to have a subscription to be able to play with others, odd)

Edited April 30, 2019 by Re-Dragon-Cro

[RuningKikFukSlap]

You bought RDR2 to play RDR2 Story Mode.....Correct? RDR Online is a free "add on".

 

If the "beta" was a free standalone download, you didn't have to have PS plus to be able to play it and was not included with an RDR2 purchase......, would you have paid another $15 or $20 when it came out of "beta"???? Cause then you're argument would've been : "Why do I have to pay to keep on playing RDR Online, if it was suppose to be free when I bought RDR2?"

 

You pay a PS plus subscription for whatever extra benefits Sony offer us and to access the multiplayer function from most or all games that you buy. You already have it and are probably always going to renew it, for as long as you game on a PlayStation console.

 

I totally understand the reason or logic behind your question, but this really is a bad effort at trying to have a stab at Sony or Rockstar, for an online game that is in "beta" and didn't cost you a cent in the first place. 

Edited April 30, 2019 by RockPaperAK-47

[YNNEL]

It stopped being a beta as soon as micro transactions were brought in

[U Carmine]

19 minutes ago, YNNEL said:

It stopped being a beta as soon as micro transactions were brought in

It looked like a nearly finished game, so... just updating. Can't a game exist that updates + allows in-game real life money purchases? One of first of its kinds. Lead by example for future games, maybe.

[Foxwolfe]

11 hours ago, RockPaperAK-47 said:

You bought RDR2 to play RDR2 Story Mode.....Correct? RDR Online is a free "add on".

 

If the "beta" was a free standalone download, you didn't have to have PS plus to be able to play it and was not included with an RDR2 purchase......, would you have paid another $15 or $20 when it came out of "beta"???? Cause then you're argument would've been : "Why do I have to pay to keep on playing RDR Online, if it was suppose to be free when I bought RDR2?"

 

You pay a PS plus subscription for whatever extra benefits Sony offer us and to access the multiplayer function from most or all games that you buy. You already have it and are probably always going to renew it, for as long as you game on a PlayStation console.

 

I totally understand the reason or logic behind your question, but this really is a bad effort at trying to have a stab at Sony or Rockstar, for an online game that is in "beta" and didn't cost you a cent in the first place. 

 

I guess it's fine to frame it like that at this point in time, but Sony only jumped on the "subscription required to play online games" bandwagon due to Microsoft getting away with it for so long. Like how it's always been on PC, playing games online on the PS2/3 only required an internet connection. Originally PS+'s big draw was getting free games each month as opposed to "allowing" us to play their consoles games online. Now that they use that model it's especially frustrating when a game uses P2P as it's literally me paying again for something I'm already bringing to the table: Internet.

 

It's great that there's other benefits, but to force the customers to pay again for a basic service that the company themselves has nothing to do with is rather sh*tty from a consumer standpoint.

[TNT Goes Boom!]

12 hours ago, •—• said:

It looked like a nearly finished game, so... just updating. Can't a game exist that updates + allows in-game real life money purchases? One of first of its kinds. Lead by example for future games, maybe.

Not if that game is explicitly and unironically referred to as being in the beta stage by the devs. Get out of here with that "lead by example" crap. Either take "Beta" out of the name and say that the game is the full release which will get regularly updated or don't bother with microtransactions since they're in no need of being tested considering how they're not as broken as the rest of the game.

[Chunkey_Monkey]

Nearly 6 months now and still Beta WTF R* your as bad a the BBC here in the UK there iplayer for 4k has been in Beta for ages as well and that dont bloody work right either 

[Foxwolfe]

It's frustrating because on one side, I can acknowledge that them putting a beta tag on it is recognition that it's not fully finished/ready yet, but at the same time people expect beta periods to have more transparancy and communication. The fact that the microtransactions have already been enabled kinda spits in the face of what people expect from a beta considering it says they're willing to take peoples money for something they themselves are saying isn't complete yet (and I mean complete as in the base product, obviously a game like this will continue getting new content/features into the future but when core thing like story/stranger missions still aren't working correctly the base game isn't complete).

[BUT THE BENZ]

*COUGH*

horse bonding

*COUGH*

 

and if it wasn't for that glitch by revolver(something) and I still weren't able to rock the STUBBLE, lord knows I'd be mentioning that every other day....fail-code is fail-code

customers had to gltich that so it was available, because R* seemingly wasn't able to do it themselves.

 

beta....

[Amy Vinewood]

On 4/30/2019 at 8:23 PM, Foxwolfe said:

Originally PS+'s big draw was getting free games each month as opposed to "allowing" us to play their consoles games online.

I'm still disappointed they stopped offering the free monthly games to the Ps3 and the Vita. Ps3 I can understand, but the Vita was also marketed as a companion to the Ps4

[El Diablo 702]

This “beta” should have been a free download 6 months before the game came out. Release the og map with some different game modes to get player feedback. They could have got a feel of what the players want/don’t want, then at the launch most of this bs would have been fixed. The sheer lack of listening to the rants/raves from the player base is just 1 of the reasons people are moving on to other games. 

[éX-Driver]

On 5/6/2019 at 11:05 PM, Amy Vinewood said:

I'm still disappointed they stopped offering the free monthly games to the Ps3 and the Vita. Ps3 I can understand, but the Vita was also marketed as a companion to the Ps4

Nobody bought the bloody thing, what did you expect? Pretty much every PSVita game got a PS3/4 remaster, and they’ve basically swept its existence under the rug. I don’t even think they’re making them anymore. I’ve not seen a console flop as hard as the Vita since the Saturn.

[Chrismads]

12 hours ago, El Diablo 702 said:

This “beta” should have been a free download 6 months before the game came out. Release the og map with some different game modes to get player feedback. They could have got a feel of what the players want/don’t want, then at the launch most of this bs would have been fixed. The sheer lack of listening to the rants/raves from the player base is just 1 of the reasons people are moving on to other games. 

Yeah isn't that what a beta used to be? Using players as unpaid testers.

Or is that Alpha?

[CMCSAVAGE]

4 hours ago, Chrismads said:

Yeah isn't that what a beta used to be? Using players as unpaid testers.

Or is that Alpha?

It still is for certain games, some Betas require you to own the game. I'm not sure if there's ever been an Alpha on console, I was in a closed Alpha one, but that was on PC.

 

Edited May 8, 2019 by CMCSAVAGE

[Jason]

If I were MS/Sony I'd mandate that all betas like RDO's are renamed to "early access", which has for the most part (few exceptions) become the standard on PC. Beta's that last for months if not years don't make much sense, especially when they're monetised.

[Ghoffman9]

1 hour ago, Jason said:

If I were MS/Sony I'd mandate that all betas like RDO's are renamed to "early access", which has for the most part (few exceptions) become the standard on PC. Beta's that last for months if not years don't make much sense, especially when they're monetised.

With some exceptions. You cannot push a game out the door before its ready, charge full retail price, and think you can avoid criticism for an unfinished product by slapping a Beta or Early Access label on there. Games like RDO are disqualified from that, both for charging full retail price to get and again for monetizing the online mode after the fact with their premium currency. Without such exceptions every soulless corporation is gonna be shoving their games out the door way to early and raise the Beta/Access shield to deflect criticism. It just gives them the opportunity to push unfinished games out the door and circumvent the justified backlash.

Edited May 8, 2019 by Ghoffman9

[Jason]

RDO is full retail price because it's thrown in with a massive single player to be fair. It's not like we're paying $60 for RDO alone.

Edited May 8, 2019 by Jason

[Ghoffman9]

1 hour ago, Jason said:

RDO is full retail price because it's thrown in with a massive single player to be fair. It's not like we're paying $60 for RDO alone.

Then why don't they just let you download the game and only have access to the online component? That does not constitute a valid argument until that is an option. Even then that does not cover the fact that they're monetizing RDO with a premium currency. There is that as well. They didn't do it for GTAO, and they won't do it for RDO, cause they want that upfront payment of sixty dollars to play their online mode.

Edited May 8, 2019 by Ghoffman9

[Jason]

11 minutes ago, Ghoffman9 said:

Then why don't they just let you download the game and only have access to the online component? That does not constitute a valid argument until that is an option. Even then that does not cover the fact that they're monetizing RDO with a premium currency. There is that as well. They didn't do it for GTAO, and they won't do it for RDO, cause they want that upfront payment of sixty dollars to play their online mode.

So now every game that has single player and online should release the online mode for free?

[Ghoffman9]

1 hour ago, Jason said:

So now every game that has single player and online should release the online mode for free?

If you're trying to monetize it like its a free to play game, then yes. Like the title says "Free to play" means no upfront cost that serves as a barrier of entry. Rockstar themselves often go off how the single player and online mode are two completely different and separate beasts. Its a lie to say that we get the online mode for free, cause if you want to play, you gotta pay that sixty dollars. Far too many companies are trying to enjoy the best of both worlds and the cons of neither, having their cake and eating it too. Charging up front like a pay to play game and then trying to charge you more after the fact like its a free to play game. There are many players who bought both Gta 5 as well as Red Dead Redemption 2 solely for the online mode, I know many who played both games who bought it for that purpose.

Edited May 8, 2019 by Ghoffman9

[Jason]

7 minutes ago, Ghoffman9 said:

If you're trying to monetize it like its a free to play game, then yes.

Ehhhhhhhhh.... How are they supposed to monetise an online game if it's not F2P then?

[Ghoffman9]

1 hour ago, Jason said:

Ehhhhhhhhh.... How are they supposed to monetise an online game if it's not F2P then?

Games for many years had online modes that did not try to nickel and dime you like a free to play game. I been around for those years, but by the looks of things it looks like you didn't. Even Gta 4 had its multiplayer that was not being monetized like this. 

Edited May 8, 2019 by Ghoffman9

[Jason]

6 minutes ago, Ghoffman9 said:

Games for many years had online modes that did not try to nickel and dime you like a free to play game. I been around for those years, but by the looks of things it looks like you didn't. Even Gta 4 had its multiplayer that was not being monetized like this. 

Point me to GTA IV's online content updates such as new vehicles, clothes, modes, businesses etc years after release.

 

Comparing online gaming from last gen to this gen is completely useless as it's changed a lot. Developers would support their online modes for a few months then dump it and move onto their next game but these days they support their games for years. That content can't be made without on-going support from players. This isn't something developers accounted for by the way, players sticking with games for years was something players naturally began to do and developers adapted to it, which is why we saw some studios scramble to get their versions of these on-going games out there.

 

So while you, like my self, may have been around last gen for online games like IV, it looks like you've not been around for online gaming at all this gen. Welcome to 2019 my dood.

[Hetraet]

12 minutes ago, Jason said:

Point me to GTA IV's online content updates such as new vehicles, clothes, modes, businesses etc years after release.

 

Comparing online gaming from last gen to this gen is completely useless as it's changed a lot. Developers would support their online modes for a few months then dump it and move onto their next game but these days they support their games for years. That content can't be made without on-going support from players. This isn't something developers accounted for by the way, players sticking with games for years was something players naturally began to do and developers adapted to it, which is why we saw some studios scramble to get their versions of these on-going games out there.

 

So while you, like my self, may have been around last gen for online games like IV, it looks like you've not been around for online gaming at all this gen. Welcome to 2019 my dood.

Still...they made billions from the sales of the game, why can't they just pay off for a continued support of that game then? The online mode in gta v and rdr 2 is not free to play, you have to pay the full price for the game to be able to play online. If they continued making good and joyful content that people could actually afford, the player base and sales of the game would be much better. It isn't necessary to monetize support for the game post launch, they got their billions and can use those to build their reputation by releasing good free to play content into the game, which would really just make the sales better. You pretty much sound like Strauss Zeldick...he even thinks they are under monetizing us like wtf.