Releasing without multiplayer, is that what passes for a launch now?

Scot · October 2018

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.

Octagon7711 · October 2018

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.

ConstantineMerus · October 2018

Although you get the games with a single purchase but Rockstar treats them as 2 different products, just as they did with GTA.

We have GTA V and GTA Online. And Red Dead Redemption 2 and Read Dead Online.

I really don't see the problem here. It is up to the critics to review the games separately.

I also don't see the game as an unfinished title. It is complete and almost flawless. They decided to add the online part later. What good not releasing the single-player part would do for anyone?

I think we shouldn't be judging everything in black and white.

Vrika · October 2018

What should the reviewers do? Should they write reviews like "This game is a masterpiece but I'm going to detract points because I believe it will get expansions later on and those expansions will have really hard time matching the quality of original content" ? That would be plain stupid, upcoming future expansions and content updates are not a bad thing.

VestigeGamer · October 2018

Aren't these separate titles? RDR 2 and later, RDR: O? Kind of like GTA V and GTA: O? I don't know, but that how it seems to me.

Scot · October 2018

ConstantineMerus said:

Although you get the games with a single purchase but Rockstar treats them as 2 different products, just as they did with GTA.

We have GTA V and GTA Online. And Red Dead Redemption 2 and Read Dead Online.

I really don't see the problem here. It is up to the critics to review the games separately.

I also don't see the game as an unfinished title. It is complete and almost flawless. They decided to add the online part later. What good not releasing the single-player part would do for anyone?

I think we shouldn't be judging everything in black and white.

Well firstly any game that was going to have multiplayer used to be launched when it had the multiplayer, surely you can see why I think this fits in with what Octagon said:

"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."

This is not a special case, it is an example of releasing a game that is unfinished, to a certain extent a free pass is being given because the solo part is so good. But we know how the gaming industry works, once someone introduces a bad practice they all follow it. I expect this to become the norm, 'we will have multiplayer but buy the game first or you won't see it.'. Well for the big names anyway, gaming studios that do not have a track record will find it hard to pull that one.

The second part of my concern is will RDR get a second multiplayer review? We have all seen how some sort of multiplayer is becoming part of every release, if this becomes the norm I don't see gaming magazines doing two reviews for every game. But the onus here was on the reviewers to point out this had no multiplayer and the game was judged without it, which I hardly saw mentioned.

I can certainly see how with multiplayer not being a main feature of the game this is seen as a secondary issue. Sure, but it is still an issue and as we have seen so many times before such practise gets passed on.

PsYcHoGBR · October 2018

GTA 5 online was released after the main game.

https://www.gamespot.com/articles/heres-why-red-dead-redemption-2s-online-mode-relea/1100-6461897/

Scot · October 2018

PsYcHoGBR said:

GTA 5 online was released after the main game.

https://www.gamespot.com/articles/heres-why-red-dead-redemption-2s-online-mode-relea/1100-6461897/

Indeed, not saying this is a first, just highlights a tread. Calling them "separate products" is just PR talk to get around the fact they are not releasing the full game.

Ghavrigg · October 2018

I'm perfectly fine just playing through the campaign first and having the online as something else to look forward to down the road. Also, the game is a single player game first, multiplayer second (if at all, might be separate entirely), and should very much not have their reviews and scores be messed up by an online component - especially if they released it unfinished just to have it at launch.

ConstantineMerus · October 2018

Scot said:

ConstantineMerus said:

Although you get the games with a single purchase but Rockstar treats them as 2 different products, just as they did with GTA.

We have GTA V and GTA Online. And Red Dead Redemption 2 and Read Dead Online.

I really don't see the problem here. It is up to the critics to review the games separately.

I also don't see the game as an unfinished title. It is complete and almost flawless. They decided to add the online part later. What good not releasing the single-player part would do for anyone?

I think we shouldn't be judging everything in black and white.

Well firstly any game that was going to have multiplayer used to be launched when it had the multiplayer, surely you can see why I think this fits in with what Octagon said:

"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."

This is not a special case, it is an example of releasing a game that is unfinished, to a certain extent a free pass is being given because the solo part is so good. But we know how the gaming industry works, once someone introduces a bad practice they all follow it. I expect this to become the norm, 'we will have multiplayer but buy the game first or you won't see it.'. Well for the big names anyway, gaming studios that do not have a track record will find it hard to pull that one.

The second part of my concern is will RDR get a second multiplayer review? We have all seen how some sort of multiplayer is becoming part of every release, if this becomes the norm I don't see gaming magazines doing two reviews for every game. But the onus here was on the reviewers to point out this had no multiplayer and the game was judged without it, which I hardly saw mentioned.

I can certainly see how with multiplayer not being a main feature of the game this is seen as a secondary issue. Sure, but it is still an issue and as we have seen so many times before such practise gets past on.

Oh mate, you have launched your concerns against a game with a very high level of polish and an insane amount of contents available (I did an estimate last night, singleplayer alone has easily +200 hours of gameplay at its current state). 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--dead wrong.

Rockstar is launching a singleplayer game called Read Dead Redemption 2 - it is finished, polished, and it has more available contents than Witcher 3 or Skyrim including all of their DLCs at launch. Later on they are going to release Read Dead Online - which is a free expansion that adds online multiplayer game. What is wrong with this, really?

Here's a quote from Rockstar:
"Rockstar developers have said they consider "Red Dead Online" and "Red Dead Redemption 2" to be two different games. Players will be able to explore the open-world environment of "Red Dead Online" alone or with friends, and the online mode will have its own narrative storyline."

They did the same with GTA V.

Yes, you are right about the awfulness of the practices you have mentioned, but I fail to see how those would apply to this title.

Regarding the second part of your concern; reviewers have been reviewing expansions, DLCs and different game modes for years now. But, let's say they won't in this case. What goes wrong exactly? We've seen games getting an initial awful score, then later on through patches they have actually fixed all of their issues. So should we go back and review them again? Because in all fairness, the initial launch score is no longer valid. Reviews do have a date and that date matters.

rodarin · October 2018

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).

ConstantineMerus · October 2018

rodarin said:

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.

Albatroes · October 2018

Some of these reasonings you guys develop for games launching without modes is funny. "That's not the main draw of the game anyway." Says who? Same excuse for all these multiplayer only titles after they've had single player plus multiplayer. I'm happy that SOME of you feel that way, but lets be real, that's not why these devs skip stuff. They do it to save costs, plan and simple. It feels like this generation is so blind to being cheated or something.

Scot · October 2018

ConstantineMerus said:

Oh mate, you have launched your concerns against a game with a very high level of polish and an insane amount of contents available (I did an estimate last night, singleplayer alone has easily +200 hours of gameplay at its current state). 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--dead wrong.

Rockstar is launching a singleplayer game called Read Dead Redemption 2 - it is finished, polished, and it has more available contents than Witcher 3 or Skyrim including all of their DLCs at launch. Later on they are going to release Read Dead Online - which is a free expansion that adds online multiplayer game. What is wrong with this, really?

Here's a quote from Rockstar:
"Rockstar developers have said they consider "Red Dead Online" and "Red Dead Redemption 2" to be two different games. Players will be able to explore the open-world environment of "Red Dead Online" alone or with friends, and the online mode will have its own narrative storyline."

They did the same with GTA V.

Yes, you are right about the awfulness of the practices you have mentioned, but I fail to see how those would apply to this title.

Regarding the second part of your concern; reviewers have been reviewing expansions, DLCs and different game modes for years now. But, let's say they won't in this case. What goes wrong exactly? We've seen games getting an initial awful score, then later on through patches they have actually fixed all of their issues. So should we go back and review them again? Because in all fairness, the initial launch score is no longer valid. Reviews do have a date and that date matters.

You mentioned the "high level of polish and insane amount of content" that's why I think RDR has been given a pass on the multiplayer issue. I am not saying this is unfinished in the same way Bless or many EA titles are unfinished, I think this is a new version of unfinished. We don't have a name for this version of "launching a game in stages" yet, but if it becomes the norm it will get one.

It is easy to see how many won't see this as a big issue because from everything I read the game is excellent, and if you put monetarization to one side I am a huge Rockstar fan, they make games that others would not even try to do.

The history of gaming has been one of gaming companies forever pushing what a launch means, what is appropriate as DLC, what can be sold in a cash shop. Has that made me a cynic? Yes, but with reasons longer than my arm.

When looking at how the gaming industry is going to push bad practise next, never look for something big, always look for something small which becomes bigger. If cash shops did not teach us that, they taught us nothing. You said you could not see how the likes of awful EA issues could apply to this, these issues always start as stepping stones. And I am certainly not saying this is going to be as big a game changer as loot boxes or anything like that.

My concern here is not primarily with Rockstar, they usually deliver. It is with the precedent this sets for how games are released in the future and what gaming companies think they can get away with.

[Deleted User] · October 2018

The user and all related content has been deleted.

k61977 · October 2018

Depends on the game to be honest. This most likely will be an unpopular response but here goes. Personally for me RPG type games like this don't need multiplayer at all as I don't want others in my game. That is a huge problem these days is that some gamers and devs think every game has to have some form of multiplayer. Look at games like Mass Effect where they basically crammed it down the throats of all the people that bought the games as single player games over the years but now a major portion of development was instead going to something they didn't ask for. It works both ways. Again it depends on what type of game it is. If it is a story driven game, then no they don't need to release with multiplayer IMO. A game has to be coded from the bottom up for multiplayer, for it to be a good multiplayer game and not something where they just decided oh we need more players so lets try and get the co-op/multiplayer people also. Not ever game needs to have or has to have multiplayer.

cheyane · October 2018

Did Rockstar hold out that this game was going to be multiplayer or a later version? They never misrepresented it so why should they not launch as they announced. They announced it as a single player game.

I think it is fine and have no issue with it because they never misrepresented it.

No Man Sky on the other hand did.

Scot · October 2018

cheyane said:

Did Rockstar hold out that this game was going to be multiplayer or a later version? They never misrepresented it so why should they not launch as they announced. They announced it as a single player game.

I think it is fine and have no issue with it because they never misrepresented it.

No Man Sky on the other hand did.

Well that leads to my point about how these things start to become a standard way of launching a game, it is not Rockstar I am a worried about. If this becomes standard practice we are not going to always see marvellous polish and tons of content in the solo game are we? I am not saying there is any misrepresentation here, for me what NMS did was worse.

Just a reminder here that people seem to have overestimated the importance that I see this as having, this is not a small stepping stone to the next loot box, it is rather more like the way EA stretches out getting the complete game, but with RDR a solid solo game release.

K61977, well I to don't see why every solo game needs multiplayer, indeed it was with some irony that I noticed this happened as MMORPG's were becoming less multiplayer and totally soloable to top level. I see this yet another example of the one size fits all approach to maximise the player base, here the amount of multiplayer is being standardised.

bartoni33 · October 2018

rodarin said:

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).

Image: https://forums.mmorpg.com/uploads/editor/o4/6tbyy0kax5t1.jpg

On topic: Loving the game so far. Is VERY slow paced early on but is supposed to get better as you progress.

If RDO is anything like GTAO it will be a hard pass for me.

Avanah · October 2018

Scot said:

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.

It does have Multiplayer.

http://www.rockstargames.com/reddeadredemption/features/multiplayer

Iselin · October 2018

Wow. I knew developers had gone gaga over games as a service making every game under the sun multiplayer.

But now when the latest installment of a traditionally single player franchise from a studio that has until very recently done nothing but single player titles releases a single player game with news that they will be releasing a multiplayer mode later we call them out for releasing an unfinished game?

This is frigging hilarious.

GeezerGamer · October 2018

Octagon7711 said:

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?

And for that matter why have they learned that they can deliberately break out features or content not to be relased as part of the complete game for a later release and charge even more money for it and call it "DLC"? (Hint: why charge $60 when you can charge $90 for the same game?)

Impatient gamers can't stop throwing their money fast enough at these shady practices.

But as for this game........is it really incomplete though?

aleos · October 2018

I think you're only allowed to do it if you're a company like Rockstar. Seeing as how they typically follow through I don't think anyones really worried about their delay or their plan. Their reputation and ability to deliver is pretty sound and holds weight in the community.

GTA V's multiplayer when released was buggy as hell. Now its a slice of interactive artwork. Plus lets be real. Console Red Dead Redemption is just a beta for PC

and I just shot a guy in the face with a double barrel and took half his head off. So I'm quite satisfied.

bartoni33 · October 2018

Avanah said:

Scot said:

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.

It does have Multiplayer.
http://www.rockstargames.com/reddeadredemption/features/multiplayer

Couldn't even finish the first sentence without posting huh?

[Deleted User] · October 2018

The user and all related content has been deleted.

laserit · October 2018

Something that use to be an added bonus is now expected at release. These games have always been single player.

Howdy, Stranger!

Releasing without multiplayer, is that what passes for a launch now?

Comments

"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey

거북이는 목을 내밀 때 안 움직입니다

거북이는 목을 내밀 때 안 움직입니다

Howdy, Stranger!

Quick Links

Releasing without multiplayer, is that what passes for a launch now?

Comments

"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey

거북이는 목을 내밀 때 안 움직입니다

거북이는 목을 내밀 때 안 움직입니다