Why the hell no more single player content?

[Ares4X]

Because online mode brings more money? Even RDR got a single player DLC.

Not everyone is obsessed with playing MP online.

[AC Denton]

Originally posted by Ares4X:

Because online mode brings more money? Even RDR got a single player DLC.

RDR1 online wasn't raking in tons of money though. False equivalence.

[Gabber420]

Is just standard for this days. Sadly but i like offline games.

[Gaunter O'Dimm]

R* hasn't published single player DLC in over a decade, it's just not part of their business model anymore.

[HerculeHolmes]

It could be Take Two Interactive telling them no and calling the shots an all of Rockstar's IPs.

It could be that they just want to focus on RDR Online because it brings in more money.

It could be that they felt the story of RDR 2 was complete and didn't see any value in adding more onto it.

It could be that they've started work on RDR 3 and GTA 6 are putting all their creative energy behind that.

It could be that they initially planned not to but somebody's mind changed somewhere along the line and they're working on it now.

It could be that some key people who worked on RDR 2 are no longer there and have moved on to other projects and whoever's left / there now are working on other projects.

It could be that they wanted to make single player DLC but decided that it wouldn't make as much money ans they would have liked, so they scrapped it.

It could be that these are the last of the traditional Rockstar games we'll ever see and the new titles in the series will be essentially MMORPGS like Fallout 76.

It could be that they were planning on it but COVID put it on hold and then killed it due to how long its been.

It could be anything.

Above all, it would be nice if it happened, but all we can do is be content with what we got and hope for the best in their future titles. I just hope we get more good single player games from them.

[n0mad23]

I don't think many remember the broken promise for a GTA 5 SP DLC even.

R* has pretty much gone downhill after losing Dan, imo.

My own dissatisfaction aside, I do have to do a bended knee for what R* did in making RDR2 SP - no other Spaghetti Western inspired open world game comes close to what was ultimately released. For many of us, this is what we've dreamed of.

Of course this does not absolve them for introducing bugs after the fact ("You're going to freeze to death Arthur"), nor the "fix" over a year later by removing all weather related dialog.

That's not a fix. That's as cheap a cheat as was not taking responsibility for breaking things.

Take 2's legal team continuing to go after modders is also as corporate despicable as anything we've seen.

[HerculeHolmes]

Also, probably an unpopular opinion, but Undead Nightmare wasn't all that great of an Expansion.

Conceptually, it's a fun idea, but I didn't like the execution.

[HerculeHolmes]

Originally posted by n0mad23:

I don't think many remember the broken promise for a GTA 5 SP DLC even.

R* has pretty much gone downhill after losing Dan, imo.

My own dissatisfaction aside, I do have to do a bended knee for what R* did in making RDR2 SP - no other Spaghetti Western inspired open world game comes close to what was ultimately released. For many of us, this is what we've dreamed of.

Of course this does not absolve them for introducing bugs after the fact ("You're going to freeze to death Arthur"), nor the "fix" over a year later by removing all weather related dialog.

That's not a fix. That's as cheap a cheat as was not taking responsibility for breaking things.

Take 2's legal team continuing to go after modders is also as corporate despicable as anything we've seen.

I just hope RDR 3 doesn't turn into the next Fallout 76.

I hope, but I don't have much faith.

[pike]

Originally posted by Ares4X:

Because online mode brings more money? Even RDR got a single player DLC.

Not everyone is obsessed with playing MP online.

the single player story is complete , there is no need for dlc (dlc is a money grab, thats a nice way of inflating the games price) , i would rather Rock Star spend the time and money on a new game rather than stupid dlc

[LordOfTheBread]

Rockstar is making all the money in the world with GTA 5 online, they don't care about making single player content anymore and who can blame them when a ton of whales purchase shark cards.

Its litterally printing money with no efforts. They clearly did want to make a repeat with RDO sadly it is way less popular, even after selling it for 5$ so they don't put much effort into it.

Anyway, solo is great so that's that.

[Silhouette]

For better or worse, multiplayer content makes more money.

The single player campaign for Red Dead Redemption 2 was likely funded by the huge monetary success of GTA Online.

So, if focusing on online content is more profitable, and allows Rockstar to fund 9-year projects like Red Dead Redemption 2’s story mode, then I’m all for Rockstar focusing on the online content; just so long as they also keep releasing story-focused masterpieces. ;)

[A_Tree]

Originally posted by PoisonBlade:

For better or worse, multiplayer content makes more money.

The single player campaign for Red Dead Redemption 2 was likely funded by the huge monetary success of GTA Online.

So, if focusing on online content is more profitable, and allows Rockstar to fund 9-year projects like Red Dead Redemption 2’s story mode, then I’m all for Rockstar focusing on the online content; just so long as they also keep releasing story-focused masterpieces. ;)

Totally man! I wish more people saw it this way.

[Ares4X]

Thanks a lot for your opinions guys! +1

[marcusaddamsson]

Originally posted by PoisonBlade:

So, if focusing on online content is more profitable, and allows Rockstar to fund 9-year projects like Red Dead Redemption 2’s story mode, then I’m all for Rockstar focusing on the online content; just so long as they also keep releasing story-focused masterpieces. ;)

Gosh... really? RDR2 was nine years in the making...?

[globefish23]

Single player DLC doesn't provide constant revenue for years.
And that's what the stock traded parent company Take 2 Interactive and their shareholders want.

[R3m0ved]

Originally posted by marcusaddamsson:

Originally posted by PoisonBlade:

So, if focusing on online content is more profitable, and allows Rockstar to fund 9-year projects like Red Dead Redemption 2’s story mode, then I’m all for Rockstar focusing on the online content; just so long as they also keep releasing story-focused masterpieces. ;)

Gosh... really? RDR2 was nine years in the making...?

Yep, they started in 2010... right after the first was launched, PS4 was not even prototyped, 2000 people worked on, almost 550 M$ budget, still the most expensive video game ever made
1200 actors, 500 000 voice lines, 6 years of studio for the dubbing and voice part
Imagine the logistic nightmare here

People don't realize anymore how much work this is, like little spoiled brats we are
To compare, a comm satellite takes about two years, with about the same amount of workers (R&D not included), manufacturing and tests only

My personal bet is that they are working on a RDR1 Remake with their last RAGE Engine, while Remastering only their old GTAs, all those of rumors right now
Ofc a new GTA is also in the oven, GTAO PS3 support end this December, they'll be finally free from this gen

So in order, i would say :
- GTA 3, VC, and SA Remasters
- RDR 1 Remake
- GTA VI along with a new GTAO

This is still far away tho