• accideath@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    5 hours ago

    On the one hand, this is bullshit. A 14 y/o game shouldn’t cost more than its successor. On the other hand, I remember reading, the reason for RDR having never been released for pc (until now) was that the version of the RAGE engine they used was based on the one from GTA IV but severely modified with features that were originally meant for the version of the engine that would ultimately power GTA V. Those modifications apparently weren’t documented particularly well, making it unprofitably difficult to port to PC at the time. So my guess is, that the steep price isn’t just corporate greed but to some extent actually for a lot of work making sense of a 14 year old frankenstein monster of an engine and getting it to work well on modern architectures.

    • a1studmuffin@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 hour ago

      If they only released RDR on PS3, this explanation might make sense as the engine would be heavily optimised for PS3. But they also released on Xbox 360, which is the closest console platform to Windows in terms of architecture. It wouldn’t have been that expensive to port.

      • all-knight-party@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        45 minutes ago

        I think there must be a degree of truth to the spaghetti code backstory, otherwise Rockstar would’ve just ported it already and raked in the cash

    • FiveMacs@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 hours ago

      And it’s the gamers problem that rockstar is shit at documenting their own engine? It’s not like they used someone else’s engine that went out of business, it was their own code.

      Just makes me have even less faith in the near non existing faith I have in this company

    • DrSteveBrule@mander.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 hours ago

      You’re right in the first half. I don’t see why anyone should pay more for inefficient work. I don’t want to go to the mechanic who drags his feet and bills me for an extra 2 hours of work that wasn’t necessary.

  • ThrowawayOnLemmy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    36
    ·
    8 hours ago

    Well then I’ll be patient and pick it up on a deep discount. No skin off my back. I already went 14 years without playing it.

    • Raiderkev@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 hours ago

      It’s on switch and always on sale. I think I got it for $20. I’m sure after a bit on PC price will drop.

  • TommySoda@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    8 hours ago

    As I did with every other Rockstar game I have ever paid for, I’ll get it on sale. I’ve never really been a hardcore fan anyway. And I have such a backlog of games that by the time I’d get around to playing it, it will probably be on sale.

  • Mandy
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    6 hours ago

    This is what we deserve really, we keep letting it happen

  • supersquirrel@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    17
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    9 hours ago

    meh I could never get past the fact that the red dead games just have shit gunplay in my opinion, it is kind of shocking how little rockstar seems to care about putting fun rewarding gunplay into their games.

    • li10@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      8 hours ago

      I think the gunplay is fun, it just goes for more of a “realism” approach.

      Not saying it’s great, but it’s enjoyable and a good component in the context of how the entire game plays imo.

      It’s not supposed to be snappy, it’s made to be kinda slow and almost purposely clunky. For me that’s always made the gun fights quite tense and punishing in a good way.

      • supersquirrel@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        7 hours ago

        It isn’t that the gunplay is slow and clunky, I like all kinds of shooters from operation harsh doorstep to xonotic to cod mobile to easy red 2… I like shooters pretty much however they come, but I would barely quantify red dead as a shooter.

        To say the gunplay is weak, shallow and poorly integrated with level design is an understatement and I think is a shame because otherwise red dead 1 and 2 are phenomenal games.

        • wizardbeard@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          6 hours ago

          I think I get what you mean. It simply doesn’t control well outside of deadeye mode where you stop time and effectively pick your shots out in first person with a laser pointer.

          It’s classic GTA lackluster gunplay. Point your character in the general direction of the enemy, then spam the fire button until the bad guy falls down.

  • mods are fascists @dormi.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    7 hours ago

    They were playing the long game by making Red Dead Redemption 2 so shit that everyone would come back to the first one at a raised cost.