Gaming Red Dead Redemption 2 (PC, PS4, Xbox One, Stadia)
- Thread starter JamesB__
- Start date
Shit has been prevalent for years.
Rockstar are just as bad as EA these days but they're too cool to criticise.
You can also buy the Collector's Box...
*Game not included.
Rockstar are just as bad as EA these days but they're too cool to criticise.
You can also buy the Collector's Box...
*Game not included.
At least the puzzle is double sided
Rockstar were one of those rare developers whose games I still bought day-one at full price, along with the likes of Naughty Dog and CD Projekt Red. With this shit? Forget it. This has instantly turned into a one or two year wait to buy some sort of complete edition at a reduced price. I really can't stand publishers holding back content for special version and I refuse to be a part of that.
Interesting that's your big criticism of them. That's what they (almost) all do. Surely what marks Rockstar out as special is the extent to which they've run with the microtransaction business model. GTA V has made more money than any other single piece of entertainment, in any medium, ever. Good on them in one way, its a mark of success. But if you listen carefully you can hear the sound of them squeezing the money straight out of their customers, in a way that will likely have profound implications for the whole industry going forward.
In this trend they are the pioneer. So id be more critical of them for that. (And to @Shane88's point above, I have seen them be criticised for that.)
Well if you're talking about their online stuff, I'm not into that. I've only ever played their games offline but I've never had the feeling that content was held back. I do now. You are correct in saying that's what almost all of them do, which is as much as I said in my post, only that Rockstar didn't do that with their previous games. I don't buy any of those games where I feel like content has been held back at full price anymore and it's very disappointing to see Rockstar going down that route as well.
You don’t like micro transactions yet support Naughty Dog. Strange as they had it in the last of us online. The difference between them and Rockstar is that Rockstar were successful at it.
You don’t like developers holding back DLC or releasing special versions. Yet you’d buy a CD project game. Pretty sure all DLC is just cut from games. Did you buy the Witcher 3 at launch?
Looks like you won’t be buying many games this year.
Judging by that screenshot they going to do what they did with GTA online which is release the online later.
So I’m not sure why the worrying is about. The Houser brothers see themselves as Hollywood writers or even bigger. You’d think judging by the criticism all the trailers have been about the online and not story. Plus both of them didn’t give two shits and had nothing to do with the making of GTA online. That was Leslie Benzies who seems to be painted as some sort of hero. When in fact he was the one who started the bullshit behind shark cards.
As for the Graphics
Rockstar have spent 6 years rewriting the AI system for RDR2. I’m sure they wouldn’t go to that lengths if they didn’t give a toss about the story.
True. I don't play online either. But other publishers seem to still have time for old school, offline, single player gamers. Whereas Rockstar give me the impression I'm now pretty much an afterthought. So that is my big criticism of them, personally.
You're right though, any publisher that gives you everything in the game straight out the box deserves special credit.
Like I said, I don't care about online, so it doesn't matter to me if Naughty Dog have micro transactions in their multiplayer. I don't understand what you're saying about The Witcher 3. What content was cut for a special version or held back for DLC? They released a load of free DLC and then two signficant expansions that required extra development time and resources. That's not nearly the same as a developer holding back missions from the base version that are actually finished and available at the time of release.
You're right about one thing, I won't be buying many games this year, or I should say, many new ones.
They announced them before the game was even out. So it’s funny how you give CD project a pass for that.
Announcing DLC before a game is out is a shitty move. Just adds more to the speculation as to why they couldn’t put that in the game in the first place.
God of War and the Yakuza series get it right. Just one game and no expansion or DLC missions. Before someone says GOW has been released. The director has said there is no plans and he seems to want to get a move on with the next game.
If you don’t want to support this type of bullshit then be consistent. Don’t buy DLC, micro transactions or expansions. Most of them are cut from the main game anyway.
That's a load of bollocks. They were expansions, not DLC. Expansions with brand new stories that gave around 50 hours of game time. Expansions have been around in gaming, especially RPGs for decades and are not in any way comparable to shitty 1 mission DLCs and new clothing, which, funnily enough, CDPR gave for free for months after release.
I doubt you truly believe what you're saying and are just being pedantic for the sake of your argument, mind.
I give them a pass for it because it's something completely different, and I would've gladly given Rockstar a pass for doing the same. What's wrong with announcing DLC before a game? You do know it's possible to start planning and writing scripts while the base game is already feature complete? You ask why would they not add that to the base game, well because the first expansion required such additional effort that it was released a full 5 months after the base game and the second one over a year later.
You're asking me to be consistent by not doing something that's completely unrelated. Where's the consistency? I've bought plenty of expansion packs (as we used to call them) for games back in the day. Half Life's Opposing Force, Diablo 2's Lord of Destruction, Age of Empires II's whatever it was called with the additional civilizations. These were huge additions that were clearly never part of the original feature set of the game, and it's only normal you pay for all that extra effort. The Witcher 3's expansions were cut from the same cloth. All the garbage other studios charge for, they gave away for free, months after the release.
Now if you're going to argue that holding back missions that are finished on release for a special edition that costs an additional 20$ is fundamentally the same as developing a signficant amount of additional content after the base game development is completed and charging for it, well I don't know what to say to you.
I have never bought expansions or DLC but when they come prebundled with the game when I bought it - as was the case with HZD and The Frozen Wilds for example - I often really enjoy it. And I have come pretty close to buying expansions, I nearly bought one for Dragons Age Inquisition because I wanted to eke more out of the game.
I do think there is a worthwhile distinction to make between actually carving out content to hold it back and sell it separately, versus making additional content for gamers who want to keep the experience of playing a game alive for a bit longer. I actually dont know which category the DAI DLCs fit into. Though even then you could say the publisher should just crack on with making a full new game instead.
I guess it comes down to how much extra content, and how much extra money. Each should be judged on its own merits. At the end of the day I dont judge publishers too harshly for trying to make money, they are corporations and that is what they do. I definitely think there is an issue around loot boxes and other microtransactions when they are aimed at kids - which Rockstar is definitely not guilty of, given the content of their games. Adult players should have the wherewithal to make up their own minds. If Rockstar can make oodles of cash doing what they do with GTA V good luck to them, but they wont make any money out of me that way. Itll be sad if the GTA franchise is done with single player, and I hope RDR2 is as good for players like me as all their old games have been.
I do think there is a worthwhile distinction to make between actually carving out content to hold it back and sell it separately, versus making additional content for gamers who want to keep the experience of playing a game alive for a bit longer. I actually dont know which category the DAI DLCs fit into. Though even then you could say the publisher should just crack on with making a full new game instead.
I guess it comes down to how much extra content, and how much extra money. Each should be judged on its own merits. At the end of the day I dont judge publishers too harshly for trying to make money, they are corporations and that is what they do. I definitely think there is an issue around loot boxes and other microtransactions when they are aimed at kids - which Rockstar is definitely not guilty of, given the content of their games. Adult players should have the wherewithal to make up their own minds. If Rockstar can make oodles of cash doing what they do with GTA V good luck to them, but they wont make any money out of me that way. Itll be sad if the GTA franchise is done with single player, and I hope RDR2 is as good for players like me as all their old games have been.
Expansions they announced before the game was even out. Before a single copy was even sold. So I’m guessing the above person didn’t wait a year and buy a complete version. But just bought the base game of Witcher 3. But he’s going to skip RDR 2 because he most likely is going to miss out on a 10 min mission. Makes sense.
If EA or Rockstar announced expansions before the game is out they would be criticised. But it’s CD project they don’t make any money off online transactions, so we let them off. Even Nintendo were criticised and rightly so for announcing DLC of Zelda before it was even out.
Sony and Uncharted atleast did it the normal way. Announce it a year down the line and release it 15 months later. That’s how most expansions were done. The shitty practice of announcing it before the game is even out adds more fuel to the fire that the content was cut from the main game.
I’m sure you’d be crying and moaning here come August if Rockstar decide they going to do a story expansion before the game is even out. I’m sure there would be a huge uproar.
If it was a choice between selling an expansion a year later or having the game delayed yet again Id probably sooner they got the main part of the game out. Presumably the delays there have already been have been because they are cramming so much content into the game it is taking longer than they set aside to make it all?
No, I wouldn't be. If the expansion was a brand new story that was unrelated to the main plot and game and had over 40 hours of content that requires an additional 13 months of development before it released and only cost 20e I would be absolutely all for it
You are comparing DLC that is released at the same time as the game that costs an extra 25% on top of the main game and has one mission and a few outfits to 2 expansions that also cost around that, are 50 hours long, have brand new stories, world's and mechanics and took 5 and then 13 months to be released.
You're talking out of your fecking hole here. If more Devs released content like the 2 TW3 expansions nobody would give a flying feck if they announced them before the game came out. Plus there's a reason CDPR are not looked down on this in contrast to EA, and that's the fact that they give all the little extra missions and outfits for free and only make you pay extra for 50 hours of new content. When have EA done that exactly?
Why don't you just stop talking nonsense, you're clearly only doing it to get a reaction, because if you really think CDPRs methods are comparable to EA then you must be a bit tapped.
Erm you missed last year when the mighty Nintendo were criticised for announcing season pass DLC for Zelda before the game was out. Even though the DLC added significant hours to the game.
5 and 13 months to be released? No it didn’t. It was announced before the game was out, so sort your maths out. Do you think the Witcher 3 was out and they were like let’s get heart and stones out in 5 months. Did you read what I actually said? Do you think they just started work on the expansion on the day it was announced? They were like oh we announced a expansion called Hearts and Stones, so we better get a move on it.
Why are you using EA as a example? When have I defended them? Can you read what I said before your cd project fanboy drivel.
I said announcing DLC or expansions before the game is released is a shitty practice to do. You don’t know if it’s been cut from the main game or what. Atleast let the game hit the shelves and let people play it. Also companies like Ubisoft have admitted they deliberately cut content from their main games to provide as DLC. It’s clear this issue is common nowadays.
Also btw you may think CD project are glorious. But they a business at the end of the day. They not there to be friends. They there to take your money. A few years ago before GTA online everyone was praising Rockstar North. But once they start milking money from GTA online then the criticism starts coming in. These companies don’t care about you, so I don’t get why people get defensive over them.
Also Cyberpunk 2077 will have online elements to ensure its long term success. That’s what the CEO told a investors meeting. So it won’t be long before CD project Red join the online party too. They’d be foolish not to because they are a business at the end of the day.
Noting like a good game developer forum war 
Ï'll just say that if all other developers would make DLC with the quality of Hearts of Stone and Blood and Wine, I would be one happy gaming nerd.
Ï'll just say that if all other developers would make DLC with the quality of Hearts of Stone and Blood and Wine, I would be one happy gaming nerd.
Noting like a good game developer forum war
Ï'll just say that if all other developers would make DLC with the quality of Hearts of Stone and Blood and Wine, I would be one happy gaming nerd.
@Adebesi has it right.
All the publishers care about is money. Rockstar released Ballad of Gay Tony and the biker expansion for GTA IV. Both were good. But it didn’t make them enough money. Take Two CEO at the time said the sales were disappointing. So why bother again especially with GTA online.
The expansion profit probably would make half of what GTA online makes in one single month. They a business not a charity.
Of course they're not a charity, they want to make money and as long as they shell out fantastic content like CDPR did with the Witcher 3 they can have some of mine
What do you mean by the bolded part? This is a genuine question by the way, it's not really clear. If you're implying that they already had the content finished but held it back for 5 months, that's a bit cynical for me and there's not really any basis for it. I personally don't have anything against announcing DLC before the game is out. I can't speak for other people that lambast studios for it, I wasn't part of that and I never would.
I do believe studios have plenty of unfinished stuff that they leave out of the game because decisions have to be made at a certain point. I'm sure there's some stuff they leave out with the idea of potentially releasing it as DLC, but would require a lot of extra effort to get it to a state where it's ready for release. So yes, CD Projekt Red would have technically started work on it well before the main game was released. I believe the vast majority of expansions in gaming history would've come about in a similar way. I don't see the issue with that, perhaps because I work at a software company myself and I know all too well how many half-baked features we cut from a release, only to put them in a next release when we've put the required effort into them. Our next release is probably already halfway finished by the time the current one hits. At the end of the day, if it requires extra effort beyond what was determined to be part of the base game, charging for it is just sound business. You pay for effort.
But stuff that is completely finished at the time of release but held back for a more expensive version doesn't sit well with me. In another post you argued I would be missing out on RDR 2 because I don't get a 10 minute mission and that doesn't make sense to you. Well, it does make sense to me, because I don't wish to support that practice. I won't be missing out by the way, I just mark it as a "buy complete version at reduced price down the line".
Anyway, this is all getting a bit heated and that was not my intention. I also don't want to hold up CD Projekt Red as a beacon of ethical business because they have serious issues of their own. But I think I've made it clear where I draw the line between what I think is fair towards the customer and what isn't, and sadly for me Rockstar have now fallen on the wrong side of that line, along with too many other big studios.
Like what?
Serious question of my own. Speaking as someone who knows a lot less about all this stuff than you and most other people in this thread by the looks of it. I only ever read praise for CDPR (if you dont count mild criticism like "the combat in Witcher 3 isnt absolutely amazing like everything else"), interested to hear another perspective.
Overworking their staff, particularly during "the crunch" (which is a widespread issue in the video game industry) without sufficient extra payment. Basically asking them to work overtime for several weeks or even longer without or with very little compensation. This happens in a lot of companies in many different industries of course, but it seems to be really really bad in the video game industry. It's often not taken seriously as some just argue it's part of the job, but when it seriously starts impacting employee's private lives or mental well-being, it's a real issue.
Interesting. I have heard something about that before, but not specifically CDPR and I didnt know it was a widespread industry problem. But I saw something about one of the big publishing houses (and I forget which one it was) being really awful. And CDPR are worse than the industry average?
It's hard to say, they received a lot of negative employee reviews and when pressed about it they seemed to minimize or dance around the complaints, which is never a good sign. It's hard to gauge whether it's worse than the industry average but they certainly don't seem like a positive example in this context.
I’m not heated.
I’m just telling you by your current strategy the only two games you’d be playing are Yakuza and God of war this year if you haven’t done so. Both good games btw.
Rockstar were seen as the shining white knights of the industry only a few years ago. What’s changed? They just got in with the times of making money. If they really wanted to be cnuts they would release GTA every few years. The fact is most likely we wont see another GTA until 2020 or later. That’s seven years after GTA IV. It’s not like what Ubisoft do with Assassins Creed. Rockstar put a lot of effort and details in their games. They could just do AC style paint job. Reuse the assets of GTA V and do a paint job then call it Vice City. I’m sure everyone would still buy it.
Also I highly doubt they will be releasing a complete version unless they announce significant DLC. Which I doubt as Undead nightmare wasn’t successful. So you’d be buying the normal or special edition regardless.
And yes holding back content is a thing. You mentioned Half Life 2. Episode one came two years after Half Life 2 and it’s logical to believe they started work on it in 2005. Episode 2 came in 2007. Both were announced after the game was out. How is that comparable to a company announcing expansions before the game is out?
By the bolder part, they were working on the expansion way before it was announced. Could it have been put in the main game? None of us work at CD project Red, so don’t know. I do know that some stuff which CD project Red admitted to was cut from Witcher 3.
I’m seriously asking this question. Why did you buy the Witcher 3 at launch when you knew most likely there would a complete version a year later especially as they announced the expansion before the game. Don’t say the length because you didn’t know how long Witcher 3 would be. And if we were judging it on previous games then it would be around 30 Hour mark for Witcher 2. Just like we don’t know how long RDR 2 would be. The last Red Dead lasted 30 hours. GTA V was about 35 hours. That 10 min mission could be pointless in a 40 hour game. So I’m just surprised you are waiting a year to play a 10 min mission, but didn’t wait a year to play expansion pack. Just seems strange. Especially as like I said to you I don’t think there will be a complete version especially for a 10 min mission.
Like I said if you wanna put up a stand then fair play but your game choice will be limited considering nearly every game has some sort of exclusive shit that you can only buy at GAME. Me personally, I don’t bother with that shit. I avoid GAME and I’m not bothered about a 5 or 10 min extra mission especially in a open world game. I just don’t buy that edition and the less people who do that then they more likely not to do that again.
Just don’t say companies like Naughty Dog care for you. @Alock1 will tell you the ridiculous microtransactions in last of us which effectively turned the online into pay to win. There was DLC for faster reloading...
The difference between Rockstar and Naughty Dog was that one was successful with their online and the other wasn’t. If Last of US online was making the money that GTA online makes Rockstar they wouldn’t bother with small change like expansion packs.
It’s the time or move on with it. Buy the base game and ignore the rest of the other shit. For me personally a lot of the games are too long anyway. I’d love more games like Wolfensteins length 10-12 hours is perfect for me.
Even Rocsteady have hired someone whose CV brags about how much in game revenue they made for another game.
Sony focus on single player games. But on the PS3 they had a lot of failed online experiments like Warhawk, Mag and PS home. Nobody plays Killzone or Uncharted online. It’s why they seem to have left the multiplayer to the third parties. They also get a cut from any microtransaction you buy anyway.
I just hope MS would do the same. Focus on the single player and leave the multiplayer to the third party.
I really don't get your bold part and why you're making so many assumptions about what I think. They were released 5 and 13 months after the game itself. However, in that period it is likely a significant amount of development time took place. Obviously I don't think they only started on them at that point. I work in IT, I'm a software developer, I know how this stuff works, to an extent.
I also have no love for CDPR, like you said, they're a money making enterprise, I don't adore them or worship them or whatever. I do have respect for certain aspects of what they do, like not using DRM and their commitment to their games long after the release of them, and not using micro transactions. Whatever about them, they have far better development standards and are much more dedicated to customer satisfaction than many of the big gaming companies out there and thus are generally held in much higher regard by the gaming community.
To me there is a significant difference between a company announcing two expansions and openly saying they have 50 hours of brand new content, worlds and stories and will be released in the future, and have no bearing on the main game itself, and a company releasing something on the same day the game is released that adds very little for what you pay for it and does sound like it can impact the main game if you do not get it.
Rockstar are making it seem like you will miss out and not have as good an experience with the main game if you don't buy the extra stuff straight up. CDPR announced two expansions that will be released in the future that have absolutely no effect on the main game itself (and still added shitloads of free dlc for the main game after release too).
If you don't think there's a difference there then fine, but I do. I'll still buy RDR if the reviews are good, obviously, because I do think Rockstar are still committed to making great single player games otherwise their online for them will never take off.
Excuse the multi quoting but yours is too large a post to reply to in one go.
I wouldn't say I have a strategy, but if we're going to call it that, you seem to be deciding my strategy even though it contradicts what I'm saying. My "strategy" is that I don't want to pay full price if I feel like I'm not getting the full experience. You seem to decide I can't feel I'm getting a full product if they've already announced future expansions, and I've repeatedly stated I don't see it that way and have given a lenghty explanation of why I see it that way. You chose to ignore or dismiss that explanation, but what can I say? It's my explanation and I stand by it.
In case there's no GOTY edition or something similar to come, I'll just buy whatever version is in significant discount in a couple of years. No big deal.
Technically I mentioned the first Half Life, but I guess your point stands. Once again though, you seem to have issues with a company announcing an expansion before the game is out while I don't.
The answer is very simple, and it has nothing to do with the length of games. When I purchased The Witcher 3 I fully believed I was getting the complete edition with everything in it as it was intended by the creators. Having bought and played both expansions, I still feel that way. Like I said in my previous post, it seems reasonable to assume certain ideas were cut during development with the idea to really flesh them out after the release and turn it into worthy expansions. The reason that doesn't make The Witcher 3 feel like an incomplete product is because I firmly believe it would've been impossible to get that content into the game in a presentable state without significantly delaying the game again, and it's a completely separate plot thread so it would probably even have felt a little out of place in the main game anyway. Of course in the end trust plays into it as well. If you believe they had it ready to be put into the game and decided to hold out for 5 months to cash in, that's your prerogative. I just don't see any reason to suspect that and since we can't know anyway, also no use to further speculate about it.
I see RDR 2's case as different because there's no speculation necessary. We know the additional content is finished and ready to be put into the game because it will be there, right on release (unless I've really missed something and they'll add it at a later date). I know it will probably be a fairly inconsequential mission (or couple of missions) and that RDR 2 will in all likelyhood be a magnificent game worthy of a full price, with more content than several other games put together. But it's the principle. I feel like I wouldn't be getting the full product and I don't support that.
I never said so, I just cited them as an example because I always feel like I get the game as it was intended, with nothing missing, when I buy from them. I would never support pay-to-win microtransactions but since I don't play online anyway, I almost view that as a separate product.
I do ignore most of the other shit. I don't really care if pre-order bonuses include stuff like additional weapon skins, costumes, gameplay boosts, etc. I would never care for these things, they're all fluff to me. But I draw the line at actual content being held back.
I wouldn't say I have a strategy, but if we're going to call it that, you seem to be deciding my strategy even though it contradicts what I'm saying. My "strategy" is that I don't want to pay full price if I feel like I'm not getting the full experience. You seem to decide I can't feel I'm getting a full product if they've already announced future expansions, and I've repeatedly stated I don't see it that way and have given a lenghty explanation of why I see it that way. You chose to ignore or dismiss that explanation, but what can I say? It's my explanation and I stand by it.
In case there's no GOTY edition or something similar to come, I'll just buy whatever version is in significant discount in a couple of years. No big deal.
Technically I mentioned the first Half Life, but I guess your point stands. Once again though, you seem to have issues with a company announcing an expansion before the game is out while I don't.
The answer is very simple, and it has nothing to do with the length of games. When I purchased The Witcher 3 I fully believed I was getting the complete edition with everything in it as it was intended by the creators. Having bought and played both expansions, I still feel that way. Like I said in my previous post, it seems reasonable to assume certain ideas were cut during development with the idea to really flesh them out after the release and turn it into worthy expansions. The reason that doesn't make The Witcher 3 feel like an incomplete product is because I firmly believe it would've been impossible to get that content into the game in a presentable state without significantly delaying the game again, and it's a completely separate plot thread so it would probably even have felt a little out of place in the main game anyway. Of course in the end trust plays into it as well. If you believe they had it ready to be put into the game and decided to hold out for 5 months to cash in, that's your prerogative. I just don't see any reason to suspect that and since we can't know anyway, also no use to further speculate about it.
I see RDR 2's case as different because there's no speculation necessary. We know the additional content is finished and ready to be put into the game because it will be there, right on release (unless I've really missed something and they'll add it at a later date). I know it will probably be a fairly inconsequential mission (or couple of missions) and that RDR 2 will in all likelyhood be a magnificent game worthy of a full price, with more content than several other games put together. But it's the principle. I feel like I wouldn't be getting the full product and I don't support that.
I never said so, I just cited them as an example because I always feel like I get the game as it was intended, with nothing missing, when I buy from them. I would never support pay-to-win microtransactions but since I don't play online anyway, I almost view that as a separate product.
I do ignore most of the other shit. I don't really care if pre-order bonuses include stuff like additional weapon skins, costumes, gameplay boosts, etc. I would never care for these things, they're all fluff to me. But I draw the line at actual content being held back.
Eh?
They said in a statement that this bonus mission has nothing to do with the main story. If the main story is shorter than their two previous campaigns then I could understand the fuss. But at the moment nobody knows the length of the campaign. We can only base it off past games. Everyone just keeps making assumption about the game. Even a few months ago people were saying Rockstar will focus more on the multiplayer. They showed literally nothing of the multiplayer. If they didn’t care about the single player they wouldn’t be showing multiple trailers of it. They would just show trailers of the multiplayer. Considering the game comes with GTA online money which suggests the multiplayer won’t be ready for launch.
It’s true GTA online is a cash cow. But that doesn’t mean Red Dead will be. What are you going to upgrade online? Your horses arse? Horse armour? You can hardly buy a chopper. There’s limited things they can sell to you online via that setting compared to GTA. Unless they go all out ridiculous and have sports cars in the Wild West. It definitely won’t be as big as GTA online. So they most likely need to focus on the single player for this because that’s the main selling point.
I just think it’s strange that somebody is going to boycott possibly a 40 hour game for a 10 minute mission. Or side activity that Rockstar called it. Which suggests there’d be multiple missions like that.
So you can make assumptions but I can’t. Do you work for CD project Red?
I heard some publishers are making levelling up excessively time consuming and tedious, to encourage people to take the microtransactions route and level up quickly. I think it was some online game, people were complaining because it meant those who pay always seem to be able to overpower them and ruin their game experience. I have certainly heard people say that about GTA V online, that the community is full of complete arseholes and if you dont pay to level up you end up getting screwed over by people who have.
Either way, THAT is something to be pissed off about and steer clear of a game for. I have no real issue with microtransactions if people want to accelerate the game for themselves, make their character look cool or whatever. As long as it doesnt have any adverse effect on my playing experience. I dont think that's likely because if they start making single player games intentionally tedious gamers are more likely to just avoid it than pay extra to improve the experience.
Either way, THAT is something to be pissed off about and steer clear of a game for. I have no real issue with microtransactions if people want to accelerate the game for themselves, make their character look cool or whatever. As long as it doesnt have any adverse effect on my playing experience. I dont think that's likely because if they start making single player games intentionally tedious gamers are more likely to just avoid it than pay extra to improve the experience.
I don't disagree with that. If the game is great I'll buy it regardless of those DLC (which I won't be paying for).
You were making assumptions about what I think, that's different.
Anyway we clearly disagree when it comes to CDPR and their expansion policy so that's fine, I don't really want to keep arguing this. Personally I'd love if more publishers were like them but if you don't like them announcing the expansions prior to release that's your choice.
That was Shadow of War. They ended up removing it. But they made the single player a grind on purpose.
Warner brothers are behind them. Rocsteady already focusing on games as a service as they hired someone in that expertise. So their next game is most likely to include some sort of bullshit.
That's right, that's what I was thinking of.
Wish they would do for LA Noire as they are doing for RDR2. I think there's a lot they could do with that game.
If they made it more fleshed out and a lot deeper with an open world that felt alive it could be incredible.
Do they own the rights to that? I remember that they were meant to buy out Team Bondi which is why they helped them with LA Noire, but decided not to after they saw what a bullying shit house they were.
So that's an advert for a trailer that's not released yet..
You made me open this thread for nothing @DWelbz19
What if your body wasn’t ready? Welbz did you a solid, robocop.
Anyway, much hype! 12 mins!