Why doesn't Red Dead Redemption 2 have DLC?

[kobe]

who can tell me?

[Ares4X]

Ask Rockstar Games, how should we know?

[Bwoah]

Because of Gta 6 development.

[Blondie]

Just to annoy you, it's personal. You probably pissed Rockstar off.

Jokes aside, it's probably because they're working all efforts on their next big project GTA VI. Even though Red Dead Redemption II was critically acclaimed, and made over $725 million dollars it's first weekend alone, it still cost eight years to produce and between $370 million or $540 million to make (Source WikiPedia, RockStar is very secretive about their sh*t.)

Red Dead Redemption II didn't got the Game of the Year Award because God of War came out and nostalgia makes votes, and Red Dead Online was an absolute mess. Eventually Rockstar probably noted that they made far more money with SharkCards to GTA Online's audience than Red Dead Online's audience, eventually abandoning it.

Making a DLC would again, cost a lot of money, effort, splitting the attention of developers in two while Rockstar prefers to focus on one big project to perfection, and probably would not make as much money as the GTA series ever could. In the end Rockstar is just a business, and they got investors to pay and jobs to hold (and that house in the LA hills does look nice to buy when it get paid by people paying real money to effort a digital one in GTA online).

Our best hope is that once Red Dead Redemption III comes out (probably will take about ten years from now or so), the map we got today will be expanded (hopefully with a huge Mexico map and a smaller Texas and New Mexico Themed Map) for even a grander Cowboy experience to roam about. But we'll never know what's going on at Rockstars HQ so these are my two cents.

Just get Red Dead 1 on the PS3 and enjoy the zombie DLC, it's still one of the better zombie games out there.

[Monke-Cat]

That's just not their business model , Rockstar Is not to blame here
It's Take2 and their shareholders , RDR2 despite being on to top sellers of all time , having a huge player base , success , potential and all of that.. It's nowhere near to the GTA online's money making machine , T2 has milked that game to it's bones for more than a decade and it still is getting regular updates, new content , cars and etc
I don't believe that the development of the GTA 6 is the right excuse . Game has been out for 6 years , they surely had the resources , but not the interest

[daedra1997]

♥♥♥♥ them idiots i wont buy any other gta ♥♥♥♥ i'll wait a billion years for rdo next game tho . i will never ever buy another gta title bc of the way they treated their best horse in their stable - RDR2 andRDR2Online(Pun intended)

[tuterux]

Originally posted by The Restless Ghost:

That's just not their business model , Rockstar Is not to blame here
It's Take2 and their shareholders , RDR2 despite being on to top sellers of all time , having a huge player base , success , potential and all of that.. It's nowhere near to the GTA online's money making machine , T2 has milked that game to it's bones for more than a decade and it still is getting regular updates, new content , cars and etc
I don't believe that the development of the GTA 6 is the right excuse . Game has been out for 6 years , they surely had the resources , but not the interest

This, maybe it's Take2 matbe it's R* but truth is live service online games with microtransactions and p2w stuff are, at least were, WAY more profitable than single player DLCs by the time RDR2 came out. It's not surprising that old school offline single player games are almost defunct nowdays.

[Monke-Cat]

Originally posted by tuterux:

Originally posted by The Restless Ghost:

That's just not their business model , Rockstar Is not to blame here
It's Take2 and their shareholders , RDR2 despite being on to top sellers of all time , having a huge player base , success , potential and all of that.. It's nowhere near to the GTA online's money making machine , T2 has milked that game to it's bones for more than a decade and it still is getting regular updates, new content , cars and etc
I don't believe that the development of the GTA 6 is the right excuse . Game has been out for 6 years , they surely had the resources , but not the interest

This, maybe it's Take2 matbe it's R* but truth is live service online games with microtransactions and p2w stuff are, at least were, WAY more profitable than single player DLCs by the time RDR2 came out. It's not surprising that old school offline single player games are almost defunct nowdays.

Fun fact : RDR2 has sold more than the entire assassins creed franchise combined, more than all resident evil games combined , it has sold more than Fifa for god's sake . any sensible person knows that You shouldn't put all your eggs in one basket , but T2 doesn't realize that . Gamers have proven that singleplayer story focused games could actually outmatch the online service games by a million times now , and maintaining player base on a live service game has a very high risk , any investment on Read dead franchise would have returned a lot of profit and even more important expanded the IP's brand to more and different people . Many people who played RDR2 have never touched GTA V and that has a marketing value of its on for the next Rockstar launch .
A single player DLC is a one time investment and doesn't need to be maintained like online content.
The people on top are blinded to these facts by their own greed .

[Bad 💀 Motha]

Ask TAKE TWO Interactive. those are the idiots that rushed Rockstar to release the game to the point where stuff was cut and future support was left abandoned.



Take-Two to Rockstar Devs: Now look here, we want this game released NOW. Make it happen, drop any extras or future plans you had for RDR2 and release it ASAP. We need as much focus on our cash-cow (GTA Online) as possible; got it... good!

Rockstar Devs to Take-Two: Ok that is really crunching our time table. We wanted to finish making the Mexico area and add some more missions and such.

Take-Two to Rockstar Devs: They won't know the difference. It doesn't need a "Mexico" included into the game. This is about the Wild West on the verge of dying out.

Rockstar Devs to Take-Two: But Sir, if I may... hmm RDR1 mostly takes place in Mexico, so yea it kind of needs that included.

Take-Two to Rockstar Devs: Most of your fans have never even played RDR1, who is even going to remember. Like I said, we need cash-flow. Spending more time on RDR2 isn't helping anyone.

Rockstar Devs to Take-Two: But Sir, we had plans to also re-release RDR1 at some point as well, for newer fans and platforms. so it really would not make sense for RDR2 to not have various parts of Mexico included in the game, again like we already planned to do.

Take-Two to Rockstar Devs: OK look scrap RDR1 as well, it's not going to generate enough $ for us either. Get working on more GTA Online content, add so much content that they see a reason to buy Shark Cards. And since the Shark Cards aren't enough, we need to you to finalize the details for the GTA+ subscription service, giving those folks all kinds of exclusives, so they feel like they need it. We also need to get the ball rolling on GTA6. So yea we don't have anymore time to waste on RDR stuff.

[WHTSUPTURKY]

or female horse parts seems a little unfair to have horse ck and balls but no vaginas of any kind

[Bad 💀 Motha]

Originally posted by WHTSUPTURKY:

or female horse parts seems a little unfair to have horse ck and balls but no vaginas of any kind

You wouldn't really see that though without lifting the entire tail-mane out of the way and checking. So really no point to it. At least with the males there is a reason it's noticeable