YodaMan 3D

How many hours of investment into a game before you feel you get your money's worth? I had this debate recently with a group of gamers and was shocked by the responses. While some felt spend $60 required years of playtime, while others felt spending $100 for 24 hours was more then enough..

Last time I tried RDR online, it was a ghost town. That was just a few months ago.

From personal experiences, I have a hard time trusting game companies. Their 1st priority is money then if still profitable they may concern themselves with customer needs and desires. I feel Rockstar is no different, don't get me wrong I love Rockstar games. The truth of the matter is the industry is changing because the customers are changing. More players are wanting the online shoot each other for no other reason then to shoot each other. Whether or not you feel you got your money's worth. Is it right to through endless amount of resources towards online play, when many of your fans enjoy the campaign? I am one who can't count how many times I replayed RDR, just because I enjoyed the story. I can tell you I only played the GTA5 campaign twice. Same for GTA4 and did play the dlcs for GTA4 once each. If they would continue the story, I would have played more.

I think we need to worry, but Rockstar imho, missed up with GTA5, but they may have learned. We will have to wait and see.

There is a time when a game is released where the game manufacturer and say Sony and Xbox negotiate deals. In RDR 2, in this process Sony got a 30 day bonus for it's players, whether or not it was Sony or Rockstar that made the offer. From what I hear the bonuses that PS4 is getting will be offered to Xbox players 30 days later. I still haven't heard will it be a free update or will they charge for it. There is a chance it will be free, but at this point and the industries greed. We may have to pay for it, if we want it. Edit: I did hear that Sony was going to release a special edition RDR 2 PS4, for this game as well. The ads I have seen are nothing but a PS4 with the game and a few bonuses.

I started to notice some similarities to how GTA5 when it came out and when the released the Online to how things are playing out for RDR. Now when GTA came out there was rumors that they was going add campaign dlcs. Then they changed their minds and focused totally on the Online stuff cause that was where they thought they would make their money. They DID make some money. Now I have heard they're planning dlcs for the campaign, but with the delay of the online stuff, could these get sweeped under the rug for the sake of making money. Will the campaign be a one and done and then all are expected to go play online? I have heard that gaming companies are pushing to get all games to online, so they can keep getting money from gamers and then kill the games when the player base gets too small to keep it going. Thoughts?

During the Summer, I wake up early enough to go to work in the dark, come home in the daylight. Winter time, I go to the work in the dark and come home in the dark. That is what it is all about, missing with me so the days blur together.

That is just pure modesty right there. I'm thinking level 99+, more likely hit max and rolled a few times already. hahaha

At this point I haven't heard there will be additional cost to the xbox users either, just a 30 day exclusive. Then again Xbox may tank a extra charge for some DLC at a later time. Still not sure how Rockstar will handle the extras for RDR2 vs GTA5. I have heard rumors that they are following the same model as they used on GTA5, which could mean no campaign dlcs. At one time I had heard that they wasn't going to be that way, but it is business and they know players will buy shark cards to extend their online experience, and you don't know if the campaign players will. Like I said all rumors at this point and I haven't seen confirmation of anything.

Either way, I found it bizarre and a little troublesome. Just picture some girl being stalked online by a guy she was nice and played a game with. I have heard some females state they don't use mics because of how guys treat them online, some overly positive and most abysmal bad.

It shouldn't affect the campaign. Then again GTA5, when they released the online mode many people had issues getting on and there was several times they would shutdown to fix issues.

I would speculate that Sony in their negotiations figures it part of the price, xbox gets access 30 days later. Now considering DLCs, generally are already done by the release of the game. They just cut it out and release it later and charge you a premium price. Rockstar probably planned on it being part of the release and Sony came in and made a deal to get a early release. That is why I said you already paid for it.

It isn't free. Sony negotiated the price and I am sure they included it in your price of the game.

At one time, there was a rumor that we would be playing as Jack from the time he grew up till the old west dies. At the time the story was you would be Jack, who was continuing the legacy of John and all those gangs that John stomped out would want revenge. I was so scared that would be true.

Coming from Rockstar, who made GTA5, I can't wait for the Bazooka. I am sure it will make it to the online mode at least.

I was telling my wife about a player I used to have on my friends list. That in RDR, she used to just talk to watch guys come running from across the map just to be around her. One particular instance, she talked about how tough one of the hideouts was to clear. Literally, everyone one on the server showed up to help her clear it and then most of them started tripping over each other to talk to her. After a few minutes, she would leave and invite the rest of us from her group to the new server, where she did it again. It all started cause I was having a debate with another guy in the group, that if players new a female was playing they stop what they was doing and come running. So we all left party chat so she could end the debate.

Nah! We don't buy it, there's gotta be more to your story. Let's start from your birth and how it brought on this name?

I personally have no issues with female gamers and I admit I do enjoy gaming with them, but I had a couple of instances this weekend that made me shake my head in shame. 1st, playing GoW4 with my wife and 3 others, we was playing Horde. At one point, my wife got knocked down and cried for my assistance. At that point I noticed the 3 others immediately stopped focusing on bad guys and swarmed to her aid. After that, it became increasingly difficult and felt like I was fighting all alone. The others seemed smitten with her and wouldn't leave her sight. To the point that they was getting in her line of sight making it impossible for her to play. She got tired of it and quit. 2nd, playing the Division, Survival. Joined a group of 3, 2 guys and a gal. Asked what the game plan would be. The young lady said she didn't know and that she had barely played that game mode often and would need help. One of the other guys claimed the same. The last guy, immediately started pounded his chest and bragging about how great he was and insisted that the girl go with him, while I schooled the other fella. I was cool with that, so they went their way and we went ours. After 15 minutes or so they was in trouble and begging for our help. So we go and save them and eventually complete the game mode. The weird part is after we was done, you have to hop on a helicopter, and the gent trying to be the Alpha male insisted that he set next to his new girlfriend. Then he tells her to send him a friend request. The fella that I was leading around then said what a good idea, we should do it again sometime. The Alpha male, then went defensive and stated that, "No, she needed a guy that could protect her and get her through these type of missions." Afterwards, I noticed the young lady stopped talking and I started to feel uncomfortable with where this discussion seemed to be going. Why is it guys seem to play different when a female is present? Are they hoping to impress her? Been my experience that most female gamers are far more blood thirsty then males. In a world where we seek equality for all, why can't some can't treat others as equals?

Skunk it is then. Glad we worked that out. I was almost scared I was going to lose sleep tonight.

We could call you "Stinker", if you don't like "Cokey" or "Skunk"?

I liked you having to go and buy it. I don't have problem, that if you drop someone that you get a small % of what they carry .

Let me guess Truth. You did this too? Either way, I tried to contact some of the CMs, asked to speak with their supervisors, not that it would change the past. I figured maybe they would look into changing how they handled these types of things. No response and dead air. So I posted a "Farewell" speech, briefly explaining why I was leaving. I expect it to be removed, but at this point I am done with that forum. Time to move on with RDR2 on the way, I was pretty much done with TD anyway.

Black Pepper, yes. Otherwise no.

Ok let's look at it this way. Guns are mostly set up to display violence, players in PvP often use it just for that in griefing. Now you put sex into that with the mindset of griefers. No good can come from it. Violence in a game with griefers is bad, but allowing them to do it in other forums. Not good chemistry. Especially, when part of your player base will be underage kids, whose mommy, daddy, or grandparent got it for them for Christmas or B-day present (Yeah I know the whole rated M for mature and how people ignore it). In the 80s and some in the 90s that was the norm in movies, but nowadays what people will accept differs from one person to another.

Just to bring closer, my ban got lefted after 2 weeks. The reason I was banned was because I criticized the how the game was handled and speculated that the company would likely follow the same business model in the future. Thou the CM offered no more explanation, he didn't give me a name to contact in case I felt I was falsely banned either.