EXCITED!?
Same here, played it to pieces on the 360 back in the day can't wait to play it on pc now.
Comment has been collapsed.
It seems that the source of the rumour is slightly more reliable than usual, this time. They say the occasion for the announcement will be tomorrow, so wel'll find out soon, I guess.
Comment has been collapsed.
It's not that great. I was so hyped for it, but when I finally played it it was just a meh experience. The setting is fresh, but the quest are so repetitive that I would rather play any other Rockstar game. Maybe if the PC port has mods, but even then - meh.
Comment has been collapsed.
See, Red Dead Redemption in my opinion is rockstars best offering...I even like it more than the GTA series...The quests are about as repetitive as any other Rockstar game(Especially the freaks and geeks type quests) with the exception of GTA5,,,Those missions weren't really repetitive IMO, but that could also be because I am a sucker for heist movies/games/books.
Comment has been collapsed.
I felt like the world of RDR is really big, but empty. That kinda killed the open world setting for me, plus as I told Miroe, maybe I was expecting too much because I like westerns a lot. I've managed to finish it, but I didn't feel any fulfillment at the end.
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm still waiting for a Bully sequel, but it seems that that is the last thing that Rockstar Games is going to put its hands on. :/
Comment has been collapsed.
If you want a slightly worse "?" game to play instead of RDR you could try http://store.steampowered.com/app/2610/ Is is not bad but also far from the greatest shit ever.
Comment has been collapsed.
well on xenia (xbox360 emulator) it can already go ingame https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v88wPwK93Ik
Comment has been collapsed.
hope so. loved it back on ps3, would love to have another run with it.
Comment has been collapsed.
Not believing this for an instant.
Every PC rumor since it launched has just been wishful thinking. It's commonly referenced whenever this subject comes up that the console versions is the coding equivalent of a giant house of cards held together with tape and string--making it practically a miracle that it works so well on consoles already and virtually impossible to export without practically rebuilding the whole thing from the ground up.
Think about it this way: if some sort of remaster (or even just a port) actually was feasible, then what possible reason would stop them from cashing in for so long? The reason they didn't then is the same reason they won't now... an estimated cost so massive they might as well invest in a new game. So if Red Dead Redemption ever see a Steam release, it's almost certainly going to be a full remake or reboot.
Not to doubt the credibility of 'Global No. 1' Game Meda' Game Focus and presumably their inside man at Rockstar Seoul, but this song and dance is so old that it's not even worth tuning in without an official announcement and even then I'd check to make sure it wasn't April Fool's day.
Comment has been collapsed.
...dude, did you even read that?
EDIT: only way I can make sense of that is maybe you assumed 'console versions' referred to any game instead of specifically RDR's ps3 and 360 releases? Is that what happened?
Comment has been collapsed.
Yes
"Think about it this way: if some sort of remaster (or even just a port) actually was feasible, then what possible reason would stop them from cashing in for so long? The reason they didn't then is the same reason they won't now... an estimated cost so massive they might as well invest in a new game. So if Red Dead Redemption ever see a Steam release, it's almost certainly going to be a full remake or reboot."
GTA V's budget is bigger than RDR and yet got remastered for next gen. RDR had a big budget at the time and since it was a new IP, there was a risk. They focused on consoles to see if it would be a financial success, which it did. PC was never considered, not because the code was a mess.
Comment has been collapsed.
Except....
The prior total budget of either property is a sunk cost, irrelevant to decision making, while net revenue actually does matter
It wasn't a new IP.
There's zero causation between being console exclusive and RDR being a hit
They've always had huge console releases.
Most of those games, both under and over performing, had PC releases
Saying PC wasn't considered at the time says nothing about why it hasn't been considered since then.
Even before GTA5, the demand for a PC release has been EXTREMELY obvious for years
You're pulling things out of your ass.
Comment has been collapsed.
How is budget irrelevant to decision making in a business standpoint?
My mistake, meant to say niche IP at the time.
I never said anything about exclusivity.
Not sure what "They've always had huge console releases," has to do with anything I said.
What are "those games." and what were their budgets?
Maybe because it's being considered now or in development?
I never said there was no demand.
What statement did I make out of "my ass."
Comment has been collapsed.
C'mon.
I already explained what function those budgets served in their decisions. Past expenses are irrelevant when deciding among potential future projects. The only thing that matters are new costs incurred and new revenue generated. Does sunk cost mean nothing to you? I'm thinking this is might just be a big waste of time here, but I'll show you if this is really necessary.
PART I, consider a hypothetical company with the limited resources for only one project that has these two viable options:
Project P, a pc port of a popular console game, has an expected revenue of $10 while project S, a sequel to an original game with a small but loyal following, only has a revenue of $5; however, the coding behind project P is so poorly optimized that it the project would incur $8 in expenses while project S would be a really cheap 2d game and incur total expenses of $2.
What is the net revenue of project P? What is the net revenue of Project S? Which project does the firm select?
Hint, and by hint, I mean the answer and only answer $2, $3, Project S
PART II, presuming the same constants of PART I, consider the impact of each of the following scenarios on the net revenues of Project P and Project S alternative scenarios, showing your work, and specifying which of the two projects they would
Assuming that Project P's initial console release cost $...., with revenues of $..... ; while Project S's original game cost $.... , with revenues of $.....
Scenario A) Console Expense: $20, Revenue: $30; Game 1 Expense $2, & Revenue $3
Scenario B) Console Expense: $2, Revenue: $3; Game 1 Expense $20, Revenue $30
Scenario C) Console Expense: $10 & Revenue: $15; Game 1 Expense $15 & Revenue $15
Hint, and again, I mean the answer: If you answered with ANY changes from the solution in PART I then YOU LOSE. Past expenses and revenues do not change decisions regarding future projects. Only the the incremental revenues and expenses of any project should be used to select a new product, and doing otherwise demonstrates the sunk-cost fallacy, making it a decision that's so blatantly wrong that there is literally a term to describe the failed logic used when applying it.
This isn't up to debate here.This is like ECON 101 stuff. And I don't mean that figuratively like the expression is normally used, this is literally some econ 101 crap and one of the first things they teach those students.
And, to preempt me having to post again, I really hope you've dignified enough that I shouldn't be waiting for some blatantly false claim that you simply meant the budget of GTA 5 and RDR are factored into the determinations of their incremental revenue or incremental expenses expectations in some dubious attempt to weasel out of the arguments established. You proposed GTA got remastered despite having a larger budget than RDR as if that fact means something relative to RDR getting remastered or not. Meanwhile my main point this entire argument has centered on how the unusually high incremental expenses of rebuilding RDR adversely affects net income estimates to the extent that Rockstar has always found alternate opportunities more profitable than even just porting it---especially noticeable considering it's basically standard practice for their other games, normally they're such high-margin projects, and calls for one and rumors of the damn thing have stretched from now way back to before it was released.
There's not really much I'd presume most people would even bother debate about these facts, but here we are. And I'd say it's always been pretty clear that this here isn't exactly your area of expertise, even before you tried to support your argument with evidence that.... the code isn't optimized for PC and that a PC release has never before been economically viable for them. (one final hint for why, although I hope it's not even needed here....it's not because they don't know the demand, and it's not because of the game's original budget dwarfs any other ports they've done, the real answer: it's because their estimated cost to fix that code for PC release is so high as the articles should make clear.) But I think as obvious as the facts behind RDR's (lack of) release make themselves after writing all this crap, I really can't resist pointing out something else out that just begs to be said after having to write all this crap, but I think there's even less room for debate on it.
You are so out of your depth here that you could map the Mariana Trench.
Comment has been collapsed.
Rumor is, after seeing how console players threw themselves on GTA5 Remaster for XB1/PS4 even after buying like 20 million copies for last-gen, R* started to make full remaster for current-gen consoles.
And wishful thinking is, if they make it for this-gen consoles, they will make it for PC, right? Right? RIGHT?
But then, porting GTA5 was easier since they it wasn't mess of a code that was glued by magic, so porting/remastering was easy. RDR would require writing most of a code from scratch, so it's probably more cost-sensible to actually start working on RDR3.
Comment has been collapsed.
Again rumor ? I'll be excited when i'll finally hear it for a fact :P
Comment has been collapsed.
Im excited but not as much as I would have been years ago.
Comment has been collapsed.
868 Comments - Last post 6 minutes ago by insideAfireball
64 Comments - Last post 1 hour ago by BattleChaing
47 Comments - Last post 1 hour ago by adam1224
38 Comments - Last post 2 hours ago by star4you
47,219 Comments - Last post 2 hours ago by Wolterhon
197 Comments - Last post 5 hours ago by GaTh
33 Comments - Last post 7 hours ago by OneManArmyStar
102 Comments - Last post 10 minutes ago by aquatorrent
11 Comments - Last post 11 minutes ago by lext
3,516 Comments - Last post 11 minutes ago by Chris76de
17,066 Comments - Last post 12 minutes ago by insideAfireball
60 Comments - Last post 14 minutes ago by ADR14N
15 Comments - Last post 18 minutes ago by DeliberateTaco
1,900 Comments - Last post 28 minutes ago by yderlig
Source
Comment has been collapsed.