Villains, lawmen, businesses, photography, and heists – the future of Red Dead Online, a Rockstar interview

[Lonely-Martin]

4 hours ago, Gray-Hand said:

Not actually spawning at the camp really does kill my connection to the camp.

 

This was one of the the things that GTAonline did better (surprisingly) than RDonline.  

 

By having a set spawn point  at my properties, and often having an animation showing my character getting out of bed or vomiting in the toilet or at least interacting with the property in some way, it felt like my character actually lived in that world.  It felt like he continued to live his life when I turned the game off.

 

With RDonline, that illusion is gone.  It just feels like the character randomly materialises into the world with no context when I turn on the game.  The camp just seems like a place he visits.

 

They should do something about that.  

Always awesome to hear or feel the rumble pad in the controller going off as I spawn into a swamp, right next to an alligator.  (Though I've not been eaten since the DLC, I have spawned nearby, lol. Always feels good to know my toon slept in 6 inches of mud though ).

 

@Commander S. You put it much better than me there. But yeah, the route may be tweaked, but the destination is the same. We're all kingpins in the making destined to own the lot, still on the run too. They started so bare of content that players are starved, and R* will take long enough between each addition that we'll just get bored enough of waiting that plenty of folk will do all during the quiet times.

 

With many players boasting to have already maxed all 3 and the pass. Just hoping R* don't think they made it too easy and change the Xp needed next time too.

 

Just gotta wait and see. Can only hope they do better than I feel it could be.

Edited September 30, 2019 by Lonely-Martin

[Hudawg]

Lol @ pvp not being that popular.  

 

Geee.. I wonder why???      Could it be its because R* turned pvp into a joke?

 

The interviewer tossed nothing but soft balls.     While their is some good bits in it, most of it sounded like he was just being a shill.

 

I mean, NO DLCS for single players?  Nothing?   Biggest game dev in history whos made billion of dollars, can't afford to make those DLC?

 

[Karen Daniels]

PvP is unpopular for many reasons. And it isn't just because Rockstar turned it into a joke like @Hudawg said.

 

Let's start with the elephant in the room: auto-aim. Any time you want to make this a standard you already f*cked up. This removes any attempt for there to be skill involved in combat. You can speed up the animations all you want to appease those who cried for a more arcade feel to the controls, but it is not gonna add any skill to combat.

 

Next is ability cards. Why the hell are these a thing? The more passive players get screwed over due to not really upgrading their cards and even knowing which ones are best to have. Again, removes any bit of skill or balance to the game.

 

Finally... special ammo. The fact this was introduced at launch (yes I know it was in singleplayer) when even in GTA it took a few years, boggles the mind. Explosive rounds and dynamite arrows can kill any player instantly, even in defensive. Incendiary shotgun shells are the biggest greider tool of all, knocking players off the horse and immobilizing them.

 

There is no need for any of this to be in a game that wants their competitive scene to actually thrive. With that said, I am glad that PvP is being tossed aside.

[Hudawg]

Just now, Karen Daniels said:

PvP is unpopular for many reasons. And it isn't just because Rockstar turned it into a joke like @Hudawg said.

 

Let's start with the elephant in the room: auto-aim. Any time you want to make this a standard you already f*cked up. This removes any attempt for there to be skill involved in combat. You can speed up the animations all you want to appease those who cried for a more arcade feel to the controls, but it is not gonna add any skill to combat.

 

Next is ability cards. Why the hell are these a thing? The more passive players get screwed over due to not really upgrading their cards and even knowing which ones are best to have. Again, removes any bit of skill or balance to the game.

 

Finally... special ammo. The fact this was introduced at launch (yes I know it was in singleplayer) when even in GTA it took a few years, boggles the mind. Explosive rounds and dynamite arrows can kill any player instantly, even in defensive. Incendiary shotgun shells are the biggest greider tool of all, knocking players off the horse and immobilizing them.

 

There is no need for any of this to be in a game that wants their competitive scene to actually thrive. With that said, I am glad that PvP is being tossed aside.

 

Well, your detailed summary of pvp is exactly why i said R* turned into a joke.

 

On top of the fact that theres no hosting options for pvp.  And no real choice of what pvp game modes to be played.  Its all public and random.

 

 Basically, doing the opposite of what they are doing fixes pvp and makes pvp fun again.    

 

 

 

[CMCSAVAGE]

19 hours ago, Commander S said:

I immediately think of how Trader works like GTAO's businesses (you're someone else's lackey,

And your character's a "lackey" because? 

 

1 hour ago, Hudawg said:

I mean, NO DLCS for single players?  Nothing?   Biggest game dev in history whos made billion of dollars, can't afford to make those DLC?

What would make you think they would even consider making DLC? The game doesn't need it.

[DarkFlame588]

Hopefully they make it much easier to gain dishonor. And make it a bit harder to gain honor. Not spending 3 gold bars to drop to dishonor only to have it maxed out again after a few hunting trips on my horse...

[Commander S]

3 hours ago, CMCSAVAGE said:

And your character's a "lackey" because?

 

You're supposedly a "CEO", but your actual job boils down to being a delivery driver for SecuroServ. You're the owner of a nightclub, but "management" means putting up posters, and being a chauffeur to guests. Always doing the grunt work for someone else, despite the premise being that you 'run the business'.

 

Frankly, half these businesses could work just as well (and with more accurate branding) if all of them were just "van (or wagon) drivers needed - apply within!" - bit like how Collector and Bounty Hunter are just 'pay the buy-in to get access, and then do work for hire'. And neither Collector nor Bounty Hunter require you to permanently transform your camp, either (sorry, Cripps, but I'm not having you skinning animals in my comfy little portable homestead, thankyouverymuch... ).

[Hudawg]

7 hours ago, CMCSAVAGE said:

 

 

What would make you think they would even consider making DLC? The game doesn't need it.

No game needs dlc. . Whats your point?

[Gray-Hand]

The point is that creatively, the story of RD2 is finished.  There isn’t any story to tell, at least not any story that Rockstar wants to tell.  Definitely not one about third or fourth tier characters like Javier and Bill.

[gtmike]

So true, the story clearly left off where RDR1 picks it up.

 

Anyone holding out hope for a single player DLC after GTAV, and after playing the RDR2 epilogue needs their head examined.

[Failed Again]

21 minutes ago, gtmike said:

So true, the story clearly left off where RDR1 picks it up.

 

Anyone holding out hope for a single player DLC after GTAV, and after playing the RDR2 epilogue needs their head examined.

Anyone with a lack of imagination and hope, may need their head adjusted

[gtmike]

1 minute ago, Failed Again said:

Anyone with a lack of imagination and hope, may need their head adjusted

No imagination needed. If you want to know what happens next in the story, just play RDR1....

[AStiffBreeze]

1 hour ago, gtmike said:

No imagination needed. If you want to know what happens next in the story, just play RDR1....

SP DLC could be completely separate to the story though, like Undead Nightmare was for RDR1.

 

That said, we're not getting any SP DLC. I bought Episodes From Liberty City and Undead Nightmare, so I did my part, but I was in the minority I guess, so the SP DLC dream is dead. Long live the grindy Online king!

[CMCSAVAGE]

5 hours ago, Hudawg said:

No game needs dlc. . Whats your point?

Well, that is my point. Maybe you should ask the people crying about DLC why they want it and why would it even matter.

[Brutal Trout]

11 hours ago, Commander S said:

 

You're supposedly a "CEO", but your actual job boils down to being a delivery driver for SecuroServ. You're the owner of a nightclub, but "management" means putting up posters, and being a chauffeur to guests. Always doing the grunt work for someone else, despite the premise being that you 'run the business'.

 

You are a CEO, hire people.

[Hudawg]

3 hours ago, CMCSAVAGE said:

Well, that is my point. Maybe you should ask the people crying about DLC why they want it and why would it even matter.

You have no point.   So maybe pull your head out of your ass before replying?

 

Last gen, R*was knocking it out of the park with dlcs. Now, they won't even step up to the plate.

 

Lost and Damed, Ballad of Gay Tony, Undead Nightmare are amazing DLCs to great games.   Guess now when it comes to this gen, CDPR will take the mantle of making great DLCs.

 

Poor R*, they probably just can't afford to make dlcs anymore.  Right?

 

[CMCSAVAGE]

26 minutes ago, Hudawg said:

You have no point.   So maybe pull your head out of your ass before replying?

Says the person that kept repeating themselves over and over again in the Undead Nightmare hints thread. Those were some great points you made, lol.

 

"Undead Nightmare was awesome." 

"Maybe you're sick of zombies. Im not."

[Hudawg]

48 minutes ago, CMCSAVAGE said:

Says the person that kept repeating themselves over and over again in the Undead Nightmare hints thread. Those were some great points you made, lol.

 

"Undead Nightmare was awesome." 

 

So Undead Nightmare wasn't awesome?

 

  You have no point, other than trying to troll people who are annoyed at the fact that R* is no longer creating quality DLCS.

 

18 hours ago, CMCSAVAGE said:

What would make you think they would even consider making DLC? The game doesn't need it.

 

This is your comment^..  And its beyond stupid.   

Edited October 1, 2019 by Hudawg

[Commander S]

4 hours ago, Brutal Trout said:

You are a CEO, hire people.

 

Eh, that's not enough - if you hire a team of truckers to do deliveries for you, and one of them is the primary contact who books the other drivers and suchlike, they're not "CEO" as a result.

 

Honeslty, a better kind of CEO mechanic would be things like the staff management system in MGSV, where you can hire/dismiss staff, train them up, assign them to different tasks, and upgrade your (in this case, mercenary) organisation whenever your overall operating level gets high enough. Or if R* just wants to stick to hands-on player action, then there's nothing wrong with having players as merely hired muscle. But trying to dress up one in the flimsiest trappings over the other, while all the gameplay is still grunt work, feels like a lack of imagination in terms of design - again, other games have done a much better job of actually simulating running a large organisation from the top down (and MGSV still has really complex third-person action/stealth gameplay as the core loop on top of that!). 

[CMCSAVAGE]

5 hours ago, Hudawg said:

So Undead Nightmare wasn't awesome?

You have no point, other than trying to troll people who are annoyed at the fact that R* is no longer creating quality DLCS.

Awesome? It was okay. You obviously enjoyed it way more than I did.

I would say "annoyed" is an understatement, after seeing some of the comments. And my point is, why get all worked up over something that was never mentioned and isn't going to happen.

[Commander S]

On 9/30/2019 at 8:56 AM, Gray-Hand said:

Not actually spawning at the camp really does kill my connection to the camp.

 

This was one of the the things that GTAonline did better (surprisingly) than RDonline.  

 

By having a set spawn point  at my properties, and often having an animation showing my character getting out of bed or vomiting in the toilet or at least interacting with the property in some way, it felt like my character actually lived in that world.  It felt like he continued to live his life when I turned the game off.

 

With RDonline, that illusion is gone.  It just feels like the character randomly materialises into the world with no context when I turn on the game.  The camp just seems like a place he visits.

 

They should do something about that.  

 

 

Yep - that, and with Cripps hanging around constantly, moving it around, it feels about as much like 'home' as spawning at your nightclub would in GTAO. In hindsight, it shouldn't have been surprising that R* would turn camp into a business HQ for Traders, considering it started out more like one than a GTAO safehouse.

 

Meanwhile, I'm playing Monster Hunter: World's expansion (Iceborne), and the MH team at Capcom have clearly taken steps to make players more invested in their personal quarters, including quests that get you new cosmetic items, more functionality, easier access from the main base hub, etc. They get that having a home base helps you feel like more of a part of the world, and have added incentives to get players to make more use of it in the game.

 

If I were to come up with a GTAO-like open-world game, I'd go so far as to have players always start off at home - partly so that you don't spawn into the open straight away (so you can get your bearings, rather than landing right in the middle of some shenanigans), but partly so that players will actually take the time to use their home property, and become more invested in it. That's another problem with RDO's camp system: right now, there's nothing you can do at camp (wardrobe, deliveries, etc.) that can't be done more efficiently by going to the nearest town (or random campfire, for crafting), making camps almost useless (unless you're a trader - but again, that's camp as a business, not a home base).

[Gray-Hand]

14 minutes ago, Commander S said:

 

 

Yep - that, and with Cripps hanging around constantly, moving it around, it feels about as much like 'home' as spawning at your nightclub would in GTAO. In hindsight, it shouldn't have been surprising that R* would turn camp into a business HQ for Traders, considering it started out more like one than a GTAO safehouse.

 

Meanwhile, I'm playing Monster Hunter: World's expansion (Iceborne), and the MH team at Capcom have clearly taken steps to make players more invested in their personal quarters, including quests that get you new cosmetic items, more functionality, easier access from the main base hub, etc. They get that having a home base helps you feel like more of a part of the world, and have added incentives to get players to make more use of it in the game.

 

If I were to come up with a GTAO-like open-world game, I'd go so far as to have players always start off at home - partly so that you don't spawn into the open straight away (so you can get your bearings, rather than landing right in the middle of some shenanigans), but partly so that players will actually take the time to use their home property, and become more invested in it. That's another problem with RDO's camp system: right now, there's nothing you can do at camp (wardrobe, deliveries, etc.) that can't be done more efficiently by going to the nearest town (or random campfire, for crafting), making camps almost useless (unless you're a trader - but again, that's camp as a business, not a home base).

There should be far more stuff to do with the camp:

- way more custom options for individual items

- more npcs 

- more camp based activities and general interactability

 

The camp was the best thing about RDR2 and probably it’s most unique feature.  They need to keep improving and expanding it.  In single player, I actually enjoyed spending time in camp.  The update has improved the camp in RDO, but there still isn’t much reason to hang around the camp yet - if I didn’t enjoy being a trader, I’d never even spawn it.

 

There is a lot of opportunity for the camp to add to the gameplay experience of RDO.  In particular, upgrading it and customising it are ways to generate a sense of progression in the game and progression is vital in a game of this type.

 

I think people are far too hard on Cripps.  He’s okay.

[Daleificent]

13 hours ago, Gray-Hand said:

 

There is a lot of opportunity for the camp to add to the gameplay experience of RDO.  In particular, upgrading it and customising it are ways to generate a sense of progression in the game and progression is vital in a game of this type.

 

I think people are far too hard on Cripps.  He’s okay.

This is my feeling as well. I enjoy having a camp but like you said, ain't much to do in it. I run some Trader stuff but few and far between still, Rank 8 I think? So I use it even less then some. Stop by, pet the dog and leave.

 

More customization is what I feel is needed. A number minor cosmetics that hang around camp, maybe an extra NPC/Helper? (I figure the camp population is more supposed to be filled with players over NPCs) Something to personalize it more. Let me change my tables look separate from my tent and all that jazz. Cripps can play harmonica, lets get some other instruments as well. Generic guitar playing? Generic banjo? Even something silly like that would make me take a minute, sit by the fire, and hang out before rushing off on my next treasure hunt or bounty. sh*t, let my toon play them as well. For being an established outlaw, my camp sure does look lackluster.

[Hudawg]

18 hours ago, CMCSAVAGE said:

Awesome? It was okay. You obviously enjoyed it way more than I did.

I would say "annoyed" is an understatement, after seeing some of the comments. And my point is, why get all worked up over something that was never mentioned and isn't going to happen.

 

The comments are just fans being upset that R* has again turned its back on supporting single player with dlcs.  

 

This game has tons of potential for single player dlcs.    And we all know why they are not adding single player DLCs.

 

And after how R* has handles GTA V.   Some of them are still salty, and rightfully so.   Nearly every concept they had for single player was reworked into GTA O. And GTA O is a complete mess that seems to only exist to sell cash cards.    

 

 

If R* had the same attitude last gen.  None of those DLCS would have been created.  No the games did not need them.     And call me crazy if you want.  But this DLC alone is better than all the 'updates' GTA O has got over the years.

 

 

Its just sad that R* no longer cares about DLCS.   

 

[MusicMan05]

2 hours ago, Hudawg said:

 

The comments are just fans being upset that R* has again turned its back on supporting single player with dlcs.  

 

This game has tons of potential for single player dlcs.    And we all know why they are not adding single player DLCs.

 

And after how R* has handles GTA V.   Some of them are still salty, and rightfully so.   Nearly every concept they had for single player was reworked into GTA O. And GTA O is a complete mess that seems to only exist to sell cash cards.    

 

 

If R* had the same attitude last gen.  None of those DLCS would have been created.  No the games did not need them.     And call me crazy if you want.  But this DLC alone is better than all the 'updates' GTA O has got over the years.

 

 

Its just sad that R* no longer cares about DLCS.   

 

Part of "fans being upset" also has to do with the mentality that if you're not purchasing Shark Cash Cards or Gold Bars then you're a "freeloader" who doesn't want to pay Rockstar for the content they created. Meanwhile a majority of people that refuse to spend a dime on Shark Cash Cards or Gold Bars would purchase paid single-player/online DLCs.

 

What I've noticed though is that some of the anti-paid single-player/online DLC crowd are the "freeloaders." They'd rather Rockstar keep the current model becuase they'll get free content for years vs having to pay for the content if Rockstar returned to their old model. (or did a hybrid model of paid DLCs with time saver "micro"transactions)

[gtmike]

4 hours ago, Hudawg said:

 

The comments are just fans being upset that R* has again turned its back on supporting single player with dlcs.  

 

This game has tons of potential for single player dlcs.    And we all know why they are not adding single player DLCs.

 

And after how R* has handles GTA V.   Some of them are still salty, and rightfully so.   Nearly every concept they had for single player was reworked into GTA O. And GTA O is a complete mess that seems to only exist to sell cash cards.    

 

 

If R* had the same attitude last gen.  None of those DLCS would have been created.  No the games did not need them.     And call me crazy if you want.  But this DLC alone is better than all the 'updates' GTA O has got over the years.

 

 

Its just sad that R* no longer cares about DLCS.   

 

The story is over, so the game actually doesn't have much potential for a story DLC. Any side stories or unrelated stuff (Undead Nightmare) would be much better suited for RDO, or even for a future RDR3.

 

Last gen doesn't matter, online wasn't what it is today. Heists in GTAO with friends were 100 times more fun than any single player DLC ever was. No one would even be talking about GTAV anymore if they had gone the DLC route instead of online, so that's just a hilarious argument in itself.

 

First your shocked, then annoyed, then upset, then sad. What is this stages of grief? Gimme a break. There's discussion, then there's just whining, and you crossed that line a long time ago.

 

Maybe try acceptance, because single player DLC isn't happening. Ever.

[Hudawg]

1 hour ago, gtmike said:

The story is over, so the game actually doesn't have much potential for a story DLC.

Seriously?  There's  few surviving members of Dutch's gang that could star in his or her own DLC.  Or they could just create a new character to star in their own short story.

 

1 hour ago, gtmike said:

Last gen doesn't matter,

Yet GTA O and GTA V use characters from GTA 4 dlc.   Go figure?

 

1 hour ago, gtmike said:

Heists in GTAO with friends were 100 times more fun than any single player DLC ever was.

That is where I stopped reading your obvious over the top trolling comments.  

 

GTA O is garbage  Funny enough, heists is where GTA O started going down hill. (GTA O was actually better on old gen too).  Heists where mostly a chore, than actually being fun.  People play mostly to earn money and not for a narrative.    

 

Single player is for actual stories and great action scenes. 

 

GTA O is where you go to grind money to buy sh*t, get spawn killed by fighter jets, flying bikes and flying cars. abuse passive mode and talk smack after blowing someone up with an orbital strike.

 

Online is not the same as Single player.   You enjoying online over single player is your choice.  But don't sit there acting like your opinion is gospel while sh*tting on single player.  

 

 

Btw, this is how DLC is done this gen.   

 

 

 

Edited October 2, 2019 by Hudawg

[MusicMan05]

3 hours ago, gtmike said:

The story is over, so the game actually doesn't have much potential for a story DLC.

Meanwhile Red Dead Redemption II has far more possibilities than Red Dead Redemption had.

 

3 hours ago, gtmike said:

Any side stories or unrelated stuff (Undead Nightmare) would be much better suited for RDO, or even for a future RDR3.

Except there's a good chance that Red Dead Redemption III will be set further back than II. Possible side stories and unrelated stuff set in the current year/location might not be possible in Red Dead Redemption III.

 

3 hours ago, gtmike said:

Last gen doesn't matter, online wasn't what it is today. Heists in GTAO with friends were 100 times more fun than any single player DLC ever was.

Meanwhile Heists in GTAO were a last gen release... As far as Heists being 100 times more fun, that's your opinion. Comparing single player vs multiplayer is like comparing apples and oranges.

 

3 hours ago, gtmike said:

No one would even be talking about GTAV anymore if they had gone the DLC route instead of online, so that's just a hilarious argument in itself.

Yet that argument assumes that the "DLC route" would have to be a handful of DLCs released within a year or so after the game released, a Complete Edition once the handful of DLCs are released and done. If they continued to release paid single player DLCs like they have free updates (which are DLCs...), people would still be talking about GTAV and GTA Online. Meanwhile what's continuing to be talked about in articles, newswire posts, etc is GTA Online, and not GTAV.

 

4 hours ago, gtmike said:

First your shocked, then annoyed, then upset, then sad. What is this stages of grief? Gimme a break. There's discussion, then there's just whining, and you crossed that line a long time ago.

Except you're not exactly having a discussion either...

 

4 hours ago, gtmike said:

Maybe try acceptance, because single player DLC isn't happening. Ever.

For GTAV, yes single player DLC isn't happening. Ever. RDRII on the other hand could still get some. Not in the plans isn't we're never going to make it. To the contrary Scott Butcgard, Rockstar's Lead Open World Designer, in the article was quoted that there's a possibility they might do it in the future. "But you know, we never say never, so we'll just have to see how the future goes." You're the one that's in denial and not accepting what's been said...

 

Not to mention paid DLCs don't have to be single player only. The Lost and The Damned, The Ballad of Gay Tony and Undead Nightmare added single player AND multiplayer content. (Even Red Dead Redemption's multiplayer DLCs added content to single player...) They'd make more money catering to both single player and multiplayer fans than only focusing on one group post launch.

 

(Heck, Fallout 76 has sold significantly less copies than RDRII, yet it's Atoms appear to be performing better than Gold Bars, if the US PlayStation Store's "Top Add-Ons of the past 7 Days" the past year is anything to go by. While Atoms occasionally appear at the bottom of the list of the Top Add-Ons, Gold Bars haven't even made the list... If Gold Bars aren't selling enough to justify the development costs for Red Dead Online's content updates, they'll either drop support or reevaluate how they're monetizing Red Dead Online's DLCs and try a different model. Such as charging for the DLCs directly like they did last gen with GTAIV and RDR)

[gtmike]

6 hours ago, MusicMan05 said:

For GTAV, yes single player DLC isn't happening. Ever. RDRII on the other hand could still get some. Not in the plans isn't we're never going to make it. To the contrary Scott Butcgard, Rockstar's Lead Open World Designer, in the article was quoted that there's a possibility they might do it in the future. "But you know, we never say never, so we'll just have to see how the future goes." You're the one that's in denial and not accepting what's been said...

 

Not to mention paid DLCs don't have to be single player only. The Lost and The Damned, The Ballad of Gay Tony and Undead Nightmare added single player AND multiplayer content. (Even Red Dead Redemption's multiplayer DLCs added content to single player...) They'd make more money catering to both single player and multiplayer fans than only focusing on one group post launch.

 

(Heck, Fallout 76 has sold significantly less copies than RDRII, yet it's Atoms appear to be performing better than Gold Bars, if the US PlayStation Store's "Top Add-Ons of the past 7 Days" the past year is anything to go by. While Atoms occasionally appear at the bottom of the list of the Top Add-Ons, Gold Bars haven't even made the list... If Gold Bars aren't selling enough to justify the development costs for Red Dead Online's content updates, they'll either drop support or reevaluate how they're monetizing Red Dead Online's DLCs and try a different model. Such as charging for the DLCs directly like they did last gen with GTAIV and RDR)

The game's been out a year, no SP DLC in the works, no plans to start work on one. You know what that means? I do, but you're free to interpret that open ended corporate speak however you want. You're talking about a paid DLC dropping 3+ years after the game was released.....

 

Things just worked differently on last gen when it comes to online content. Every update to RDO takes it further from story mode, and working on them both just won't work the same way it used to. The frequency of updates (or lack thereof) to RDO shows that they're barely keeping up as it is.

 

If gold bars end up being a failure long term, the last thing they're going to do is put more development money into the game. 

[MusicMan05]

On 10/3/2019 at 12:28 AM, gtmike said:

The game's been out a year,

The game will have been out a year on October 26th.

 

On 10/3/2019 at 12:28 AM, gtmike said:

no SP DLC in the works, no plans to start work on one. You know what that means? I do, but you're free to interpret that open ended corporate speak however you want.

You cannot say with absolute certainty that Rockstar will never make single player or paid DLC RDRII or future game. Therefore you can't possible know what that means or what the future has in store for RDRII.

 

As for corporate speak for "no plans" can mean there are plans, but they're not ready to publicly announce their plans at this time. The company I work for uses "no plans" whenever we're not ready to go public with something. Especially when word gets out that we're currently alpha/beta testing a new software or product line, but aren't ready to publicly announce it yet to our retailers/consumers. "We have no plans at this time to release a new product line" then a few weeks later "We're pleased to announce the launch of <insert new product line> later this year."

 

Let's see how things pan out with Halloween. If Rockstar has added Halloween content in the Frontier Pursuits update drip feed, then we know that them saying "we’ve been having fun with GTA Online every year at Halloween, but there’s so many possibilities and opportunities there that we haven’t begun to dig into just yet" was them not wanting to announce Red Dead Online's Halloween content early. If we do get Halloween content, and not just an Halloween event with bonuses (like GTA Online's 2014 Halloween event), that means that not only have they not "begun to dig into just yet," they"e already "dug into it," developed it, and added it to the game last month. If they're keeping the Halloween plans a secret, then what else are they keeping a secret?

 

On 10/3/2019 at 12:28 AM, gtmike said:

You're talking about a paid DLC dropping 3+ years after the game was released.....

Your point?... GTA Online has had DLC in the form of free updates for soon to be 6 years after it was released. Meanwhile:

 

Borderlands 2

Release Date: September 2012

Most Recent Paid DLC: June 2019

Paid DLC that released 8+ years after the game was released

 

Cities: Skylines

Release Date: March 2015

Most Recent Paid DLC: May 2019

Paid DLC that released 4+ years after the game released

 

The Elder Scrolls Online

Release Date: April 2014

Most Recent Paid DLC: June 2019

Paid DLC that released 5+ years after the game released 

 

Minecraft

Release Date: May 2009

Most Recent Paid DLC: June 2019

Paid DLC that released 10+ years after the game released

 

Portal Knights

Release Date: February 2016

Most Recent Paid DLC: June 2019

Paid DLC that released 3+ years after release the game released

 

The Sims 4

Release Date: September 2014

Most Recent Paid DLC: September 2019

Paid DLC that released 5+ years after the game released

 

There are other examples of current and past games that I could use. The point being that releasing paid DLCs 3+ years after a game's originally release isn't unheard of. Not to mention those DLCs have performed well enough for their developers/publishers to profit from and continue developing more paid DLCs. Surely paid DLCs 3+ years after release would work fo Rockstar too... Especially when RDRII has outsold the games I've listed, excluding Minecraft. (Heck, even RDRII's sells during it's first quarter exceeds the lifetime sells of the games I listed, excluding Minecraft)

 

On 10/3/2019 at 12:28 AM, gtmike said:

Things just worked differently on last gen when it comes to online content. Every update to RDO takes it further from story mode, and working on them both just won't work the same way it used to.

Except things aren't working differently when it comes to single player content/online content and paid DLCs for other developers this gen. Rockstar could still be adding the new vehicles and weapons in GTA Online's updates to GTAV like they used to, but then decided not to. They could also be adding the new horses, saddles, weapons, etc in RD Online's updates to RDRII if they wanted to. Not only that, but they could be selling that content as paid single player DLCs... I'd pay $10 to Red Dead Online's weapons, horses, saddles, bounty targets, gang hideouts, random encounters, etc in single player, and there are other people that would too. That's additional revenue Rockstar/Take-Two could be making.

 

Not to mention Rockstar just announced RDRII is releasing on PC November 5th and Google Stadia later in November. That's a small window between announcement and release. They could have a similar window for announcing paid DLCs. Meanwhile the PC version is getting "new Bounty Hunting Missions, Gang Hideouts, Weapons and more" added to single player. I wouldn't be surprised if the "new Bounty Hunting Missions, Gang Hideouts, Weapons and more" ends up being content that's been added to Red Dead Online.

 

The question is will that new content be exclusive to the PC/Stadia version (and next gen ports) or will Rockstar release it for PS4/Xbox One? If they release it for PS4/Xbox One, will they release it as a free update or as a paid DLC? If it's a paid DLC, and that DLC sells well, then they'd likely develop more paid DLCs. Especially if it outperforms Gold Bar sells. (Which wouldn't be that hard to do according to the US PlayStation Store's Top Add-Ons of the past 7 Days)

 

On 10/3/2019 at 12:28 AM, gtmike said:

The frequency of updates (or lack thereof) to RDO shows that they're barely keeping up as it is.

Except that's not the case... A lack of updates would be if they didn't release anything for Red Dead Online during a fiscal quarter. Currently they haven't missed a fiscal quarter yet:

 

Q3 2019: Red Dead Online Beta Launch

Q4 2019: Red Dead Online Beta Update

Q1 2020: Red Dead Online "Launch" Update

Q2 2020: Red Dead Online Frontier Pursuits Update

 

The closest we have to "barely keeping up" was a possible delay with the Frontier Pursuits update. However if that possible delay was caused by it not passing certification with either Microsoft or Sony, that delay wouldn't necessarily cause the next update to be delayed as well. At this point there's a good possibility that Rockstar is planning to, and on track to, release another Red Dead Online update for Q3 2020 at either the end of November or early December.

 

On 10/3/2019 at 12:28 AM, gtmike said:

If gold bars end up being a failure long term, the last thing they're going to do is put more development money into the game. 

So one monetization model failing for Red Dead Online means they shouldn't try a different monetization model that could be profitable before calling it quits?...