Jump to content

Should we still b e concerned about heavy translations?


#SadCowboy
 Share

Recommended Posts

The space in the title made me thing this was a meme/joke thread for a second. I need to stay off of 9GAG. lol

I don't think we should worry all that much but I can understand still having concerns. It isn't like they never lied to us before about anything or at least didn't tell us the complete truth. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, DiamondDave said:

I am not personally worried as I don't intend on spending much money online anyways. If I spend any at all for DLC. I am more for just running around and doing things than trying to get the most money and the best guns. 

Me neither (not worried).  I never thought the model for GTAVO was bad either as you could always still make money in game and acquire the same items.  ....although the price for items is rather high.  There are dozens of YT videos showing you how to make money fast in the game.  Although once the tasks, missions, etc. which make you money are no longer fun to do, then that's when I typically stop playing.  I never purchased a shark card in my life and never will. 

In either case, I think GTAV:O has proven to be one of the most successful online games in history regardless of whether folks disagree with their business model or not.  Personally, I would be ok if RDR2 is similar as long as there are still a variety of fun activities I can do to make in-game money.  It's when companies start moving to a pay to win model, loot box system, etc. when I take issue.  ....and I believe R* when they said they are not interested in going down that road.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Kean_1 said:

Me neither (not worried).  I never thought the model for GTAVO was bad either as you could always still make money in game and acquire the same items.  ....although the price for items is rather high.  There are dozens of YT videos showing you how to make money fast in the game.  Although once the tasks, missions, etc. which make you money are no longer fun to do, then that's when I typically stop playing.  I never purchased a shark card in my life and never will. 

In either case, I think GTAV:O has proven to be one of the most successful online games in history regardless of whether folks disagree with their business model or not.  Personally, I would be ok if RDR2 is similar as long as there are still a variety of fun activities I can do to make in-game money.  It's when companies start moving to a pay to win model, loot box system, etc. when I take issue.  ....and I believe R* when they said they are not interested in going down that road.

 

Yeah if works out just like GTA V, I would be fine with it. I don't want to be forced to spend real money to enjoy a game or keep up with others. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, VampireKrush said:

 

They are going to model everything off GTAO and do it better this time around so I have no worries.

When you say do it better, do you mean for them or us?  Cause game industries seem to be heading in the wrong direction when they say they are heading in the right direction nowadays.  Not saying games haven't improved overtime, but their constant need to need more money to keep each game going for longer then 24 hours, seems a bit much. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I try not to worry about things I can't control.  If R* wants to heavily monetize the online component, there's not much we can do to stop them.  The entire concept of "Vote with your wallet" is invalidated here with the online portion not launching until a month or more after the game itself drops in a few weeks (which I'm getting more and more excited for).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, BropolloCreed79 said:

I try not to worry about things I can't control.  If R* wants to heavily monetize the online component, there's not much we can do to stop them.  The entire concept of "Vote with your wallet" is invalidated here with the online portion not launching until a month or more after the game itself drops in a few weeks (which I'm getting more and more excited for).

I try to pay attention to the things that I can't control, cause you never know when those things may come back to bite you in the backside.  I also don't dwell on them too much either.  Sometimes life just gives you lemons, the alcoholic drink you make from it just shows your creativity.  :)  Once I became a father, I am more concerned by the actions of others and how it may affect his future.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, YodaMan 3D said:

When you say do it better, do you mean for them or us?  Cause game industries seem to be heading in the wrong direction when they say they are heading in the right direction nowadays.  Not saying games haven't improved overtime, but their constant need to need more money to keep each game going for longer then 24 hours, seems a bit much. 

Why can't it be both?

....and in an industry when other AAA companies are cutting back or simply eliminating the SP component from their games in favor of more profitable PvP modes, R* continues to find value in bringing the SP experience to their fans.  

A bad product is a bad product.  Continue to create bad products, make bad decisions, go wrong directions, piss of your customers, etc. and I don't care if you have a successful franchise or not, your sales are going to suffer.  One only has to look at what some of these mistakes AAA companies have made in recent years and what it nearly cost them.  ....consumers still have a voice.

Having said that, there are always going to be those who don't like a company's model regardless of how successful it is.  Folks also need to realize that the age of "games as a service" has arrived and won't be going away anytime soon.  It is the new business model and what is going to make companies thrive as they compete for consumers.  Games will continue to evolve to reflect that (particularly PvP).

Personally, I don't see any problem with companies using successful business models to make money.  As long as I still find value in their products, I will continue to buy them.  ....simple as that. It's all a matter of perspective I suppose but I don't see a reason why a game like RDR2 won't turn out to be better for them and us.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, BropolloCreed79 said:

The entire concept of "Vote with your wallet" is invalidated here with the online portion not launching until a month or more after the game itself drops in a few weeks (which I'm getting more and more excited for).

I wouldn't say it's invalidated.  RDO will only be successful if they can get people to play it.  ......and keep them playing it.  That's where the money is.  The initial cost of the game still gets customers a robust SP campaign so even if online sucks, they should still have something to show for their purchase.  R* on the other hand needs RDO to succeed or this whole things could be considered a bust for them.   

In a way, players deciding not to play RDO is (in essence) voting with their wallets.  They need a player base to make their MTX model successful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, Kean_1 said:

RDO will only be successful if they can get people to play it. 

Except just about everyone who buys the game on Day 1 is doing so for the Single Player element, since online won't be available for a month or more after the initial rollout.  R* will have our money at that point, regardless of whether we like the online component or not.

48 minutes ago, Kean_1 said:

In a way, players deciding not to play RDO is (in essence) voting with their wallets.  They need a player base to make their MTX model successful.

Prolonged financial success, yes.  But I'm pretty confident they'll recover the production costs with sales of the game itself LONG before they get to monetizing it with the online component.  The real question is whether or not the online mode will be self-sustaining with it's monetization scheme.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, YodaMan 3D said:

When you say do it better, do you mean for them or us?  Cause game industries seem to be heading in the wrong direction when they say they are heading in the right direction nowadays.  Not saying games haven't improved overtime, but their constant need to need more money to keep each game going for longer then 24 hours, seems a bit much. 

I mean for us. Yes, there will be aspects of pay involved but they will likely not be forced on us and that is what matters. Soon as a game starts forcing things is when it falls apart. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, VampireKrush said:

I mean for us. Yes, there will be aspects of pay involved but they will likely not be forced on us and that is what matters. Soon as a game starts forcing things is when it falls apart. 

If we end up being forced to buy things to enjoy the game or to keep things on level ground, I just won't play online. I am paying for the story anyways. Online, if it is good, will just be a bonus.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
On 10/12/2018 at 12:47 PM, Purple Cactus said:

If we end up being forced to buy things to enjoy the game or to keep things on level ground, I just won't play online. I am paying for the story anyways. Online, if it is good, will just be a bonus.

Fair point. I guess we will see how it goes. Gotta hope for the best and be prepared for the worst if anyone is intending on buying this game with intention of playing online as part of the value factor. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

LATEST RDR2 NEWS CLIPS

×
×
  • Create New...