Something that use to be an added bonus is now expected at release. These games have always been single player.
I am not sure multiplayer was ever regarded as an added bonus? There was a push to put multiplayer of some sort on what was formerly solo games, multiplayer was the new big thing. But from some of the posts again it is not Rockstar that is a concern, it is how this is picked up and used generally; take early access it is not a bad practice per se, it is just how it can be used.
Labeling this game as 'unfinished' and comparing it to god awful early-access titles and other companies that would release their unfinished buggy games in hopes of patching their problems away in months to come is just wrong-- (Red) dead wrong.
I am kind of curious why this bothers the op enough to make a thread on it esp when he has stated several times in other threads that he isn't buying the game til it has a pc release.
I bought the special edition of the game on ps4 and am actually looking forward to the online part more than the single player and this doesn't bother me why does it bother him when he hasn't even spent a dime on it.
From what I read they are doing it this way so people dont all just rush to mp and crash servers. They did it the same way with GTA V and it seemed to work why should they change now?
I am sure doing it this way gives them time to iron out any problems in the single player part before they then have to iron problems in mp. Seems better than having to deal with said problems all at the same time to me.
Now if you had to pay more beyond the sp box price to use the mp then yeah I could undertsand your concerns about "raking in the cash" grab comment.
I am kind of curious why this bothers the op enough to make a thread on it esp when he has stated several times in other threads that he isn't buying the game til it has a pc release.
I bought the special edition of the game on ps4 and am actually looking forward to the online part more than the single player and this doesn't bother me why does it bother him when he hasn't even spent a dime on it.
From what I read they are doing it this way so people dont all just rush to mp and crash servers. They did it the same way with GTA V and it seemed to work why should they change now?
I am sure doing it this way gives them time to iron out any problems in the single player part before they then have to iron problems in mp. Seems better than having to deal with said problems all at the same time to me.
Some fair points Asheram, but you are talking about why Rockstar might be doing this, that is guess work. Its not Rockstar that bothers me, its how this precedent could become the norm for games from studios I don't have as much faith in. But I would say the potential reasons you gave are faced by any game including multiplayer, and always have been.
Why does it bother me? I don't have to have bought a game or be about to buy it to have concerns, what any game does can effect the industry as a whole. But I will be buying it when it comes to the PC, if that alleviates your concern as to why I would care.
"One of the most difficult tasks men can perform, however much others may despise it, is the invention of good games and it cannot be done by men out of touch with their instinctive selves." - Carl Jung
The first RDR didn't have mp either when it released and the free roam mp was pretty much a bareboned lobby for the other mp modes, it did have a world to roam around in but with very few npc's and activitys. So this seems pretty par for course for Rockstar and this was back in 2010 and yet their games sell. Any so called effect on the "industry" from Rockstar has already happened long ago.
"This is similar to what Rockstar did with GTA Online, which was also launched shortly after GTA 5 and billed as a separate game included with the purchase of a single-player title. GTA Online got off to a rocky start with a month or so of server problems, but to say that it's moved past those early hiccups would be something of an understatement. GTA Online has made a staggering $6 billion in revenue, " https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidthier/2018/09/19/red-dead-online-beta-coming-in-november-after-red-dead-redemption-2/#5798490bb668
Maybe it should set a precedent and effect the industry as a whole, by encouraging the companies you have little faith in to continue to fix their games. Notice the GTA Online got off to a rocky start and now has made $6 billion in revenue.
Also looking for pc release dates it seems the pc version of GTA Online released at the same time as the pc version of the sp game so you have nothing to fear over a staggered pc release.
Edit: I know it's not an exact comparison, but I see nothing wrong with what Rockstar is doing here. Red Dead Redemption 2 is a complete product. The multiplayer isn't part of the core game and is a separate experience. I understand the need to hold developers accountable to release a good product, but this is certainly not the case of a game that was released in an incomplete state. If there was no promise of a future multiplayer option, RDR2 would have stood just fine on its own.
Its called monetization and these guys are second only to Chris Roberts who is the undisputed champ of that particular discipline. Because he has apparently been able to do it without releasing anything. (Other than a bug riddled tech demo and jpegs).
Red Dead Online is free if you have purchased RDR2.
I don't really care about this since it's a non-issue if it's an extra game mode that just gets included later for the same price.
However if it turns into the cesspool of cash shop and hacker/modder garbage that GTA Online is and I have to block my game with my firewall just to play it in singleplayer so people don't teleport me into the ocean, the multiplayer part doesn't really matter anyway.
You are probably better off playing it in single player anyway lol.
"You CAN'T buy ships for RL money." - MaxBacon
"classification of games into MMOs is not by rational reasoning" - nariusseldon
Apparently Red Dead Redemption has been released without multiplayer, I find this rather odd but maybe this is a console norm? I think it is fair to say that until a feature has been launched it cannot be judged for that feature? But the reviews seem to take no account of this, the multiplayer could be awful but Metacritic gives it a 97. Now I doubt Rockstar would drop the ball like that, but giving something a 97 without even seeing such an important feature does strike me as presumptive. Maybe it gets that score as a solo player game alone? But if that's the case then the possibility of it getting a lower score when the multiplayer is taken into account still rears its horse head.
We have seen so many examples of games being launched before they were really ready to do so. I do wonder if this is yet another way of raking the cash in before the game is truly finished.
Don't see anything odd about RDR2 sequel to the single player RDR1 releasing as a ....... single player game. That is its core design.
The online feature they have added is just extra sparkles on top!
If you played GTA Online for any amount of time the option to not play with cheaters/hackers and have you and your friends whitelisted is simply amazing. It's truly a cesspit playing on public servers at the mercy of hackers. Also cash shop.
"You CAN'T buy ships for RL money." - MaxBacon
"classification of games into MMOs is not by rational reasoning" - nariusseldon
If you played GTA Online for any amount of time the option to not play with cheaters/hackers and have you and your friends whitelisted is simply amazing. It's truly a cesspit playing on public servers at the mercy of hackers. Also cash shop.
I resisted buying the pc version as I had already bought it twice for console- ps3 and then ps4. So you can get hacked in your single player game on pc? Or am I misunderstanding what you are saying?
Sadly launching games before they're ready is the norm. Publishers know they can fix it later and balance that by hyping what's there currently. Not to mention slicing a game up and releasing the pieces as DLCs or expansions.
And why have publishers learned that they can release a game that is incomplete?
<snip>
Why do you think the game is incomplete?
The publishers said they were going to release a single player game. They released a single player game.
The publishers subsequently announced that there would be a multi-player option. To be made available after the launch of the single player game.
Now why would they do that? Maybe - and I will just throw this thought out there - to allow people to enjoy the single player game experience. Without having to worry about people getting some sort of headstart in the online version.
Nah surely not - that would be to sensible. Better call the game incomplete because the publishers Rockstar have - so far - done exactly what they said they would do. Boggle.
If you played GTA Online for any amount of time the option to not play with cheaters/hackers and have you and your friends whitelisted is simply amazing. It's truly a cesspit playing on public servers at the mercy of hackers. Also cash shop.
I resisted buying the pc version as I had already bought it twice for console- ps3 and then ps4. So you can get hacked in your single player game on pc? Or am I misunderstanding what you are saying?
No. The GTA Online multiplayer part has rampant hacking and cheating. You can avoid this by playing online but with your firewall turned on so only you or friends you whitelist can play with you. Turning it into singleplayer if you don't play with friends. Which I did. To avoid cheaters. Like the one who teleported me into the ocean when I was about to drive a car I spent half an hour stealing into my warehouse.
Check the link for more info. (Also I'm talking PC)
My point being the multiplayer will probably be complete ass on PC and you are better off playing single player anyway.
"You CAN'T buy ships for RL money." - MaxBacon
"classification of games into MMOs is not by rational reasoning" - nariusseldon
If you played GTA Online for any amount of time the option to not play with cheaters/hackers and have you and your friends whitelisted is simply amazing. It's truly a cesspit playing on public servers at the mercy of hackers. Also cash shop.
I resisted buying the pc version as I had already bought it twice for console- ps3 and then ps4. So you can get hacked in your single player game on pc? Or am I misunderstanding what you are saying?
No. The GTA Online multiplayer part has rampant hacking and cheating. You can avoid this by playing online but with your firewall turned on so only you or friends you whitelist can play with you. Turning it into singleplayer if you don't play with friends. Which I did. To avoid cheaters. Like the one who teleported me into the ocean when I was about to drive a car I spent half an hour stealing into my warehouse.
Check the link for more info. (Also I'm talking PC)
My point being the multiplayer will probably be complete ass on PC and you are better off playing single player anyway.
I have seen loads of cheaters in GTA multiplayer myself, maybe it is just a PC issue. I do accept though that their games are not bought primarily for the multiplayer, but that can be said for many games, it is still a feature of the game. It still counts to how it is scored and what we should be able to expect for what we buy.
The idea of multiplayer as some sort of future DLC, still in my eyes just opens a window to potential abuse. Fallout shows where this could be headed, that multiplayer dlc becomes a separate game you pay for.
<snip> The idea of multiplayer as some sort of future DLC, still in my eyes just opens a window to potential abuse. Fallout shows where this could be headed, that multiplayer dlc becomes a separate game you pay for.
I suggest you are mixing up "unfinished" with "business model".
Unfinished basically means - game does not work as advertised. Whether that means constant crashes or advertising itself as a game with a set of features that it turns out it doesn't have at launch.
RDR2 - so far - has delivered exactly what it said it would do. If the multiplayer doesn't happen then you can talk about it being "unfinished" i.e. not delivering on what it said.
Fallout being single player with a multi-player DLC is OK as well - and if they deliver that and everything works there is no way you will be able to say its unfinished. What you can "grumble" about is, as I said, the business model. Which at the end of the day comes down to price and whether this seems reasonable.
Whilst there are common costs involved there are also distinct costs: single player games expect "story" multiplayer need online servers. One argument against what they plan is that the multi-player DLC should be the "full game" without the single player content. So those who want both buy both, those who only want one aspect just buy the one they want.
Whether a game is "unfinished" or not though - different type of debate. And if we start calling the likes of RDR2 unfinished developers might give up trying. "Why should we try and polish the game when its going to get called unfinished - lets just push it out". Imprecise "headlines" like the title of the thread are potentially "dangerous".
Better question - maybe - "Should the review have waited for the online stuff". Debate, Possible answer: clear the single player game is being reviewed or whatever. No silly talk about unfinished though. Or another question: should the online option have been available at launch. Debate.
We must give credit to games that are staggeringly well made though. To call it unfinished, as I said, dangerous.
Gervaise I do realise that some of the reaction to my thread has been prompted by the fact that RDR may well end up as Game of the Year, its that good by the look of it, that's why I did not mention RDR or Rockstar in the title. But we have to be able to separate a single game from issues in gaming, and when big names do things the minnows will follow.
You also have a problem with the words I used like "unfinished", like I said there is no word for this just yet, but if releasing a solo game first and adding on the multiplayer after becomes normal then there will be. It will be a word chosen by gaming companies to indicate how wonderful this system is, how about "Gameplay Focused Release" while we might end up giving it a not so wonderful sounding name.
One thing most posters agree with is that this does raise questions about how reviews are done, to me the easiest thing would have been to call the reviews a Solo Only review. Then follow with a multiplayer review like they do for substantial DLC. But I doubt this will happen as it would bring rather too much clarity to reviews.
I think since they're separate, treated as separate and don't have any cross-play mingling (right?), that they are separate games and will be scored separately, so I have no issues with this.
First day DLC, P2W shop shit, removing of features close to launch to only release as DLC later (which isn't the case here), releasing shitty cash grab DLC that adds little-to-no gameplay to the original game are examples of things I have issues with.
Comments
I bought the special edition of the game on ps4 and am actually looking forward to the online part more than the single player and this doesn't bother me why does it bother him when he hasn't even spent a dime on it.
From what I read they are doing it this way so people dont all just rush to mp and crash servers. They did it the same way with GTA V and it seemed to work why should they change now?
I am sure doing it this way gives them time to iron out any problems in the single player part before they then have to iron problems in mp. Seems better than having to deal with said problems all at the same time to me.
Now if you had to pay more beyond the sp box price to use the mp then yeah I could undertsand your concerns about "raking in the cash" grab comment.
Why does it bother me? I don't have to have bought a game or be about to buy it to have concerns, what any game does can effect the industry as a whole. But I will be buying it when it comes to the PC, if that alleviates your concern as to why I would care.
So this seems pretty par for course for Rockstar and this was back in 2010 and yet their games sell. Any so called effect on the "industry" from Rockstar has already happened long ago.
"This is similar to what Rockstar did with GTA Online, which was also launched shortly after GTA 5 and billed as a separate game included with the purchase of a single-player title. GTA Online got off to a rocky start with a month or so of server problems, but to say that it's moved past those early hiccups would be something of an understatement. GTA Online has made a staggering $6 billion in revenue, "
https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidthier/2018/09/19/red-dead-online-beta-coming-in-november-after-red-dead-redemption-2/#5798490bb668
Maybe it should set a precedent and effect the industry as a whole, by encouraging the companies you have little faith in to continue to fix their games. Notice the GTA Online got off to a rocky start and now has made $6 billion in revenue.
Also looking for pc release dates it seems the pc version of GTA Online released at the same time as the pc version of the sp game so you have nothing to fear over a staggered pc release.
Edit: I know it's not an exact comparison, but I see nothing wrong with what Rockstar is doing here. Red Dead Redemption 2 is a complete product. The multiplayer isn't part of the core game and is a separate experience. I understand the need to hold developers accountable to release a good product, but this is certainly not the case of a game that was released in an incomplete state. If there was no promise of a future multiplayer option, RDR2 would have stood just fine on its own.
"classification of games into MMOs is not by rational reasoning" - nariusseldon
Love Minecraft. And check out my Youtube channel OhCanadaGamer
Try a MUD today at http://www.mudconnect.com/The online feature they have added is just extra sparkles on top!
"classification of games into MMOs is not by rational reasoning" - nariusseldon
Love Minecraft. And check out my Youtube channel OhCanadaGamer
Try a MUD today at http://www.mudconnect.com/The publishers said they were going to release a single player game. They released a single player game.
The publishers subsequently announced that there would be a multi-player option. To be made available after the launch of the single player game.
Now why would they do that? Maybe - and I will just throw this thought out there - to allow people to enjoy the single player game experience. Without having to worry about people getting some sort of headstart in the online version.
Nah surely not - that would be to sensible. Better call the game incomplete because the publishers Rockstar have - so far - done exactly what they said they would do. Boggle.
"classification of games into MMOs is not by rational reasoning" - nariusseldon
Love Minecraft. And check out my Youtube channel OhCanadaGamer
Try a MUD today at http://www.mudconnect.com/The idea of multiplayer as some sort of future DLC, still in my eyes just opens a window to potential abuse. Fallout shows where this could be headed, that multiplayer dlc becomes a separate game you pay for.
Unfinished basically means - game does not work as advertised. Whether that means constant crashes or advertising itself as a game with a set of features that it turns out it doesn't have at launch.
RDR2 - so far - has delivered exactly what it said it would do. If the multiplayer doesn't happen then you can talk about it being "unfinished" i.e. not delivering on what it said.
Fallout being single player with a multi-player DLC is OK as well - and if they deliver that and everything works there is no way you will be able to say its unfinished. What you can "grumble" about is, as I said, the business model. Which at the end of the day comes down to price and whether this seems reasonable.
Whilst there are common costs involved there are also distinct costs: single player games expect "story" multiplayer need online servers. One argument against what they plan is that the multi-player DLC should be the "full game" without the single player content. So those who want both buy both, those who only want one aspect just buy the one they want.
Whether a game is "unfinished" or not though - different type of debate. And if we start calling the likes of RDR2 unfinished developers might give up trying. "Why should we try and polish the game when its going to get called unfinished - lets just push it out". Imprecise "headlines" like the title of the thread are potentially "dangerous".
Better question - maybe - "Should the review have waited for the online stuff". Debate, Possible answer: clear the single player game is being reviewed or whatever. No silly talk about unfinished though. Or another question: should the online option have been available at launch. Debate.
We must give credit to games that are staggeringly well made though. To call it unfinished, as I said, dangerous.
You also have a problem with the words I used like "unfinished", like I said there is no word for this just yet, but if releasing a solo game first and adding on the multiplayer after becomes normal then there will be. It will be a word chosen by gaming companies to indicate how wonderful this system is, how about "Gameplay Focused Release" while we might end up giving it a not so wonderful sounding name.
One thing most posters agree with is that this does raise questions about how reviews are done, to me the easiest thing would have been to call the reviews a Solo Only review. Then follow with a multiplayer review like they do for substantial DLC. But I doubt this will happen as it would bring rather too much clarity to reviews.
First day DLC, P2W shop shit, removing of features close to launch to only release as DLC later (which isn't the case here), releasing shitty cash grab DLC that adds little-to-no gameplay to the original game are examples of things I have issues with.
Gut Out!
What, me worry?