Official: No Red Dead Redemption 2 Story DLC Planned

[NewsBot]

Rockstar Games has revealed its plans for Red Dead Redemption 2's single-player DLC - namely, that there aren't any. In a recent interview with VG247, the developers talked about their vision for the future, and it looks like that future has "Online" written all over it.

During the interview, which you can read in full here, the developers speak predominantly about Red Dead Online, the differences between it and GTA Online and the future they envision for the multiplayer mode.

As we suspected, the Role system introduced in Frontier Pursuits is what we can expect going forward. Players will be able to expand their careers and pick up new ones as more content is added to the game in the coming months.

Rockstar's people weren't mentioning single player at all during the interview, and when asked, their answer wasn't what we were hoping for. Right now, there is no plan to create story DLC for Red Dead Redemption 2. The developers are "100% focused on Online right now" due to many concurrent plans and a desire to translate everything people loved in single player to Online in some form.

Rockstar clearly learned from the situation with GTA Online. Back when GTA 5 was released to roaring success, the company did not yet know how massive GTA Online would become. They even officially announced story DLC being in development, however that was never released and years later they clarified that it got canned.

Instead of running those laps again with Red Dead Online, they're just straight-up saying it - don't expect additional story content. This does make sense for multiple reasons, however. Red Dead Redemption 2's storyline is a neatly tied package without loose ends. It leads on into Red Dead Redemption seamlessly, and during its course you don't have a lot of blanks.

Had we gotten some single player DLC, it would likely have been a prequel (even though Red Dead Redemption 2 is already a prequel for the 2010 game), or a spin-off focusing on some side characters, or an entirely new narrative completely unrelated to any previous Red Dead story. It would have run the risk of feeling superfluous.

We love a good single player experience, more so than a multiplayer one, but there is something to be said about outstaying one's welcome, and the single player portion is already extremely long. On the other hand Red Dead Online is enjoyable, but had a rough start and still needs some polish. While highly successful, it isn't anywhere near GTA Online's level, but a lot of care and content can help narrow that gap.

What kind of adventures could await in upcoming Red Dead Online content?

The post Official: No Red Dead Redemption 2 Story DLC Planned appeared first on RDR2.org.

Read the full story

[YodaMan 3D]

Well, no reason to keep playing this junk anymore.  All that talk about they was going to treat RDR different then they did GTA and yet they follow the same stupid gameplan that they used with GTA.  

[buttlint]

Well, If they ain't got anything to sell, then we  got nothing to buy. Put the disc in its case, stick it on the shelf and five years from now, fondly remember what a great game it was. 

[Parzival]

On 9/30/2019 at 2:47 PM, NewsBot said:

We love a good single player experience, more so than a multiplayer one

Pardon me, but bull ****ing sh*t. If there was any truth to that, they would be doing something for single player even if it was minor stuff like new weapons, outfits, or horses.

Edited October 2, 2019 by Parzival
That word didn't mean what I thought it did. lol

[Kean_1]

If you care to see exactly what R*'s take is on all this, I would read the link in that article to the original VG 24/7 interview.  Here it is again:

https://www.vg247.com/2019/09/27/red-dead-online-future-heists-villain-lawmen-business/

IMO, there is a lot more to it than what is being described above.  I'm not saying it will change anyone's mind about it, but it explains more as to why there is likely to be no additional content for the campaign.  ......and btw, they don't entirely rule out something like an Undead Nightmare 2.

They said it before but RDO is meant to be the extension of the campaign where players assume roles as themselves in the RDR2 game world.  They are trying to evolve and expand RDO into that reality.  With the introduction of the new roles and other content introduced (and planned), I can really see their vision taking shape.  They've really been catering to those who don't necessarily want to participate in PvP conflicts with other players.  In fact, they have noticed more interest in cooperative gameplay than PvP in the game which (IMO) is a good thing since that is right down my alley.  I also think that it will further encourage R* to tailor the game more with that in mind.  

I know some folks will always be adamantly against the online experience which is fine.  .....but speaking as someone who loved the campaign and is also enjoying the online experience, I can really begin to see their vision taking shape now and (personally), I like it.  .....and this is from someone who hates GTAO public sessions. 

[Saffron]

2 hours ago, Kean_1 said:

If you care to see exactly what R*'s take is on all this, I would read the link in that article to the original VG 24/7 interview.  Here it is again:

https://www.vg247.com/2019/09/27/red-dead-online-future-heists-villain-lawmen-business/

IMO, there is a lot more to it than what is being described above.  I'm not saying it will change anyone's mind about it, but it explains more as to why there is likely to be no additional content for the campaign.  ......and btw, they don't entirely rule out something like an Undead Nightmare 2.

They said it before but RDO is meant to be the extension of the campaign where players assume roles as themselves in the RDR2 game world.  They are trying to evolve and expand RDO into that reality.  With the introduction of the new roles and other content introduced (and planned), I can really see their vision taking shape.  They've really been catering to those who don't necessarily want to participate in PvP conflicts with other players.  In fact, they have noticed more interest in cooperative gameplay than PvP in the game which (IMO) is a good thing since that is right down my alley.  I also think that it will further encourage R* to tailor the game more with that in mind.  

I know some folks will always be adamantly against the online experience which is fine.  .....but speaking as someone who loved the campaign and is also enjoying the online experience, I can really begin to see their vision taking shape now and (personally), I like it.  .....and this is from someone who hates GTAO public sessions. 

The vision is a good one i agree.many have slagged tbis game off but i think they are going in the best direction possible for people who love PVE games.and we like the surprise of whats coming next.the story on rdr2 was so good they risk ruining one of the best story games made by adding content to it.there maybe more loose ends to the story but no one can say they didnt get enough out of story mode for the money we paid.online is the place to be and grinding this game may get boring but will be worth it if you love rdr2.you can make money so.much easier and faster now.this update couldnt of been better.its all free to play.

[Parzival]

2 hours ago, Kean_1 said:

If you care to see exactly what R*'s take is on all this, I would read the link in that article to the original VG 24/7 interview.  Here it is again:

https://www.vg247.com/2019/09/27/red-dead-online-future-heists-villain-lawmen-business/

IMO, there is a lot more to it than what is being described above.  I'm not saying it will change anyone's mind about it, but it explains more as to why there is likely to be no additional content for the campaign.  ......and btw, they don't entirely rule out something like an Undead Nightmare 2.

They said it before but RDO is meant to be the extension of the campaign where players assume roles as themselves in the RDR2 game world.  They are trying to evolve and expand RDO into that reality.  With the introduction of the new roles and other content introduced (and planned), I can really see their vision taking shape.  They've really been catering to those who don't necessarily want to participate in PvP conflicts with other players.  In fact, they have noticed more interest in cooperative gameplay than PvP in the game which (IMO) is a good thing since that is right down my alley.  I also think that it will further encourage R* to tailor the game more with that in mind.  

I know some folks will always be adamantly against the online experience which is fine.  .....but speaking as someone who loved the campaign and is also enjoying the online experience, I can really begin to see their vision taking shape now and (personally), I like it.  .....and this is from someone who hates GTAO public sessions. 

I just can't buy this talk about how much they supposedly love single play when they aren't doing much of anything for the single player portions of their most recent games, though. Even if it was minor stuff like new weapons, outfits and horses we could buy at shops, it would have a ringing of truth to it. But it's all a matter of money. Even if they won't admit it, it's why they stopped making new cars and weapons from GTA Online available in GTA V. Why bother playing GTA Online for that fancy new supercar when I can buy it with the billions I've gained from the stock market as Mike, Frank, or Trevor in GTA V? They stopped making new content available in GTA V because it was cutting into their sales of shark cards in GTA Online and they're not doing it in RDR2 because they know it will cut into their sales of whatever RD Online's equivalent is.

I'm also taking any claims of expanding RD Online's world with a grain of sand. They said the same thing about GTA Online back when it was first released, but here we are today and GTA Online still encompasses the same Los Santos and Blaine County that it did at the beginning.

 

9 minutes ago, Saffron said:

its all free to play.

It isn't free when I have to pay Sony or Microsoft a fee to access it.

[Saffron]

15 hours ago, Parzival said:

I just can't buy this talk about how much they supposedly love single play when they aren't doing much of anything for the single player portions of their most recent games, though. Even if it was minor stuff like new weapons, outfits and horses we could buy at shops, it would have a ringing of truth to it. But it's all a matter of money. Even if they won't admit it, it's why they stopped making new cars and weapons from GTA Online available in GTA V. Why bother playing GTA Online for that fancy new supercar when I can buy it with the billions I've gained from the stock market as Mike, Frank, or Trevor in GTA V? They stopped making new content available in GTA V because it was cutting into their sales of shark cards in GTA Online and they're not doing it in RDR2 because they know it will cut into their sales of whatever RD Online's equivalent is.

I'm also taking any claims of expanding RD Online's world with a grain of sand. They said the same thing about GTA Online back when it was first released, but here we are today and GTA Online still encompasses the same Los Santos and Blaine County that it did at the beginning.

 

It isn't free when I have to pay Sony or Microsoft a fee to access it.

Haha oh yh i do always forget that part.

[Kean_1]

16 hours ago, Parzival said:

I just can't buy this talk about how much they supposedly love single play when they aren't doing much of anything for the single player portions of their most recent games, though.

Personally, I think they provided a very robust campaign that I spent many hours on and to be quite honest, still haven't completed.  GTAV was very similar as I spent a ton of hours in that story before venturing into GTAO.

Even without the online content, these games stand alone quite well as excellent single player campaigns IMO, rich with detail and content.  I get that you don't like the fact that they don't release additional content for the main story, but IMO that doesn't mean that they are not sincere about their love for creating single player experiences.  ......and IMO, R* creates some of the best.  The success of both GTAV and RDR2 reflect that I believe. 

 

16 hours ago, Parzival said:

Even if it was minor stuff like new weapons, outfits and horses we could buy at shops, it would have a ringing of truth to it.

Both the GTAV and RDR2 campaigns have tons of content IMO.  I never played either thinking that it was necessarily lacking.  Personally, I'll usually play SP campaigns once through and then move on to the online component or to another game.  .....perhaps revisiting the campaign again at some point.  My point is, it's not as if anyone could ever honestly say GTAV or RDR2 was ever lacking content IMO although I get that some would want that experience to continue through DLC.

 

16 hours ago, Parzival said:

But it's all a matter of money. Even if they won't admit it, it's why they stopped making new cars and weapons from GTA Online available in GTA V. Why bother playing GTA Online for that fancy new supercar when I can buy it with the billions I've gained from the stock market as Mike, Frank, or Trevor in GTA V? They stopped making new content available in GTA V because it was cutting into their sales of shark cards in GTA Online and they're not doing it in RDR2 because they know it will cut into their sales of whatever RD Online's equivalent is.

Well, you can't use the things you acquire in the main story in the online mode so anyone who wants that fancy new supercar in GTAO is still going to have to buy it in the online game.   ......using in-game cash or Shark Cards.  I have doubts they had fears that adding these things to the story would cut into that action but who knows.   Could also be that they simply felt that they had added enough to the main story and cut additional content support/resources for it.  

 

16 hours ago, Parzival said:

I'm also taking any claims of expanding RD Online's world with a grain of sand. They said the same thing about GTA Online back when it was first released, but here we are today and GTA Online still encompasses the same Los Santos and Blaine County that it did at the beginning.

....but then again, here we are with a game that is one of the most successful GaaS models in the industry.  R* continues to add content to it and folks keep coming back for more. 

MTXs are what fuel that content so whether one chooses to purchase Shark Cards, Gold Bars  or simply grind for the in-game currency, we all get to enjoy the benefits.  

As far as the game worlds, GTAV and RDR2 are not small by any stretch so I believe they still have plenty to provide as they are filled with additional features and content. 

In regard to map expansions in RDO specifically, this is what they had to say about it in the linked interview:

“It’s not in the plans right now, because there’s still so much we can do with the world as it currently is, as we’ve touched on before,” Butchard says. “We’re building that foundation just now. So no plans just at the moment for that.”

I hadn't heard R* ever claim that they had commitments to expand the map although some have speculated.  

All in all, I get why some would enjoy DLC and additional content drops in the campaign but I also understand (and appreciate) R*'s vision for RDO as their focus in that respect.  It is essentially the vehicle for the players own continuing story in the RDR2 world.

[Parzival]

I'm not saying RDR2's and GTA V's story modes aren't good (though I do think GTA V's was a little too short compared to GTA IV's, but that's beyond the scope of this topic), but when I read a statement that they love single player more than multi player only for them to focus all post-release content on multi player, I can't help but be skeptical. I wouldn't go so far as to call it a lie like some of the more extreme gamers out there would do, but it does come off as a bit disingenuous to me. Not unlike Ubisoft "listening to the fans" in regards to Breakpoint.

New weapons and cars from GTA Online originally were made available in GTA V at least until the Heists Update and it certainly didn't stop the former becoming an unbridled financial success, so I have serious doubts that the LeMat and Evans being usable by Arthur and John in story mode would hurt RD Online in even the slightest.

And you're right, they did say they had no plans of expanding the game world. Seems I was reading between the lines on that.

[MrPicard]

I'm not surprised about the "no story mode DLC" thing either. They scrapped their DLC plans for GTAV when they saw how successful the multi player version became and it would be a waste of resources now to develop DLCs for RDRII's single player because it doesn't give them any profit in return - unless they made PAID story mode DLCs (ask for like $20 for it, idk). What I don't understand is not making parts of the updates available in single player also - like some of the weapons or horses. I also very much doubt that this would make people exclusively play single player again and not pay real money for gold bars in multi player, like R* wants for the players to do - it would just be a nice gimmick.

[YodaMan 3D]

It's simple, they are following a similar business plan they used with GTO.  

Now to say they care about SP vs Online, well their actions speak volumes.  Yes the single player is fun, players enjoy it and would like to see extensions of that or spinoffs.  Even though they had stated that they would give single player campaign the same focus that they would give the online, soon as it comes down to dollars and cents.  They haven't focused on single player content since release.   When the online hit, the campaign did it's job and got players playing.   Nowadays, campaigns are nothing more then tutorials to get players interested in the online gaming.

[mizTik]

I am just going to throw this out there. I am guessing this has something to do with getting the next title ready. Look how long it takes them to make a single game. You think they want to invest more time into a game that has already earned them tons of money and will do so again with the PC release when they have to get things going for the next new title? 

[buttlint]

4 hours ago, mizTik said:

I am just going to throw this out there. I am guessing this has something to do with getting the next title ready. Look how long it takes them to make a single game. You think they want to invest more time into a game that has already earned them tons of money and will do so again with the PC release when they have to get things going for the next new title? 

I am guessing that they are not only working on getting the next game ready but they are busting their humps to get that game ready for the next platform in consoles. (PS5) From all reports, that's only a year away. I am pretty sure that these guys aren't going start making games a month before the new machines arrive. Now, is lead time.

 

[shiverz]

I don't understand why they didn't at least give us some like extended missions or something at the very least. Being that they said they were going to have DLC made for the game awhile back but clearly are not doing it now makes me feel like I got ripped off in a sense. Oh well. 

[Parzival]

Oh, they planned on DLC all right, just only for Read Dead Online. You know, because they looooove single player so much.🙄

[Kean_1]

On 10/13/2019 at 5:36 PM, shiverz said:

I don't understand why they didn't at least give us some like extended missions or something at the very least. Being that they said they were going to have DLC made for the game awhile back but clearly are not doing it now makes me feel like I got ripped off in a sense. Oh well. 

I never heard that they committed to any kind of DLC for the campaign in RDR2.  I'm not sure why that keeps coming up to be honest.

As for the reasons why, folks can disagree with their choice but see my 10/3 response if you want to know why they said they don't have plans to include DLC with RDR2.  

[YodaMan 3D]

3 hours ago, Kean_1 said:

I never heard that they committed to any kind of DLC for the campaign in RDR2.  I'm not sure why that keeps coming up to be honest.

As for the reasons why, folks can disagree with their choice but see my 10/3 response if you want to know why they said they don't have plans to include DLC with RDR2.  

It keeps coming up cause prior to release, they made statements similar to "Oh, this isn't GTA.  We intend to focus on the single player campaign as much as we do the online content.  Then after everything is said and done, they have lied through their teeth about it.  Seriously, this day and age, if you have zero intent to do it.  Then say it upfront and don't make it sound as you are going to do something you have no interest in doing.   The online seems to be following the same business model that GTAO did.  

Now with that being said, why yes the campaign was very nice.  AKA, why some players wouldn't mind that being extended.  Some of those would easily pay for extended content.   To me that is why this sleezy used car saleman act gets tiresome.   I understand they have the right to change their mind, but if you advertise a game for so many different playstyles and then forget about them cause you just don't feel like you have been greedy enough.  

Sad part is that is the way the whole industry has been going over the years and being one that has a whole family that games.  Just tired of the snakes oil salesmen.

[Kean_1]

3 minutes ago, YodaMan 3D said:

It keeps coming up cause prior to release, they made statements similar to "Oh, this isn't GTA.  We intend to focus on the single player campaign as much as we do the online content.  Then after everything is said and done, they have lied through their teeth about it.  Seriously, this day and age, if you have zero intent to do it.  Then say it upfront and don't make it sound as you are going to do something you have no interest in doing.   The online seems to be following the same business model that GTAO did.  

Now with that being said, why yes the campaign was very nice.  AKA, why some players wouldn't mind that being extended.  Some of those would easily pay for extended content.   To me that is why this sleezy used car saleman act gets tiresome.   I understand they have the right to change their mind, but if you advertise a game for so many different playstyles and then forget about them cause you just don't feel like you have been greedy enough.  

Sad part is that is the way the whole industry has been going over the years and being one that has a whole family that games.  Just tired of the snakes oil salesmen.

Yeah, I guess we would have to agree to disagree.  They made mention that RDR2 was not GTAV for several reasons including the fact that it was continually being compared to it in the gaming media in regard to GTAO's success, mission structure, etc.  I don't see where they lied about DLC being in the game because as far as I know, they never committed to it.  There had been a lot of assumptions though.  

Some folks are not going to like the direction they take, some of the design choices, etc., but that's inevitable in any game.   I simply don't see anything necessarily underhanded about what they done with the game. 

Personally, I also believe they have been quite open to the community requests and suggestions.  The continual focus on adding features to help mitigate griefing for one.  ....but then again, for some this still is not enough.  

You've never really been a fan of RDO and that's fine.  ......but I don't see how that makes them sleezy, etc.  

[Vaderspupil]

10 minutes ago, YodaMan 3D said:

It keeps coming up cause prior to release, they made statements similar to "Oh, this isn't GTA.  We intend to focus on the single player campaign as much as we do the online content.  Then after everything is said and done, they have lied through their teeth about it.  Seriously, this day and age, if you have zero intent to do it.  Then say it upfront and don't make it sound as you are going to do something you have no interest in doing.   The online seems to be following the same business model that GTAO did.  

Now with that being said, why yes the campaign was very nice.  AKA, why some players wouldn't mind that being extended.  Some of those would easily pay for extended content.   To me that is why this sleezy used car saleman act gets tiresome.   I understand they have the right to change their mind, but if you advertise a game for so many different playstyles and then forget about them cause you just don't feel like you have been greedy enough.  

Sad part is that is the way the whole industry has been going over the years and being one that has a whole family that games.  Just tired of the snakes oil salesmen.

There's  a minimum of 60 hours worth of gameplay that stretches out to well over 100 if you are trying to 100% the game. I don't  think Rockstar is the one being "greedy" here. Where is the proof that they said they were going to focus on SP as much as online? I do not recall any such thing being said! It was a great story, there's really nothing more to be told and if there is, and if there's enough demand for it, I'm sure the story will continue in a new game.

[Savage_Reaper]

1 hour ago, Vaderspupil said:

There's  a minimum of 60 hours worth of gameplay that stretches out to well over 100 if you are trying to 100% the game. I don't  think Rockstar is the one being "greedy" here. Where is the proof that they said they were going to focus on SP as much as online? I do not recall any such thing being said! It was a great story, there's really nothing more to be told and if there is, and if there's enough demand for it, I'm sure the story will continue in a new game.

Pretty much. I never seen anywhere guaranteed SP DLC anywhere. Yes, story mode was great and caused players to get all types of feels. I get that people loved the story and want more . But this game was a prequel to RDR1. So you know what happens next. They never said that no SP DLC wasn't happening. They said it wasn't a TOP priority currently. Now you can interpret that anyway you want, but at least it isn't a definitive no. That may change say when the PS5 drops. Who knows. 

[YodaMan 3D]

I'm not going to waste my time looking up the article.  I just remember that one of the guys from Rockstar being interviewed and stating that this wasn't going to be a western version of GTA5 or GTAO.  No he didn't commit to adding DLC, he did state at that time, that they was going to focus to give the single player campaign the same focus that they would put to the online content.  Which to me wasn't done, by the mere fact that they haven't paid 2 cents worth of attention to RDR2 since its release, once it came out they dropped everything to focus on RDO.  

For those that have a short memory, RDR was given attention as well as it's online game was.   Seeing how their actions have shown that are following the same routine that they did with GTA5.   

To be clear, they have did very well for RDO.  It has became a enjoyable experience compared to what it was at release.   It doesn't change the fact 60 to 100 hours is anywhere close to the amount of hours that you get from RDO.   

[Kean_1]

4 minutes ago, YodaMan 3D said:

I'm not going to waste my time looking up the article.  I just remember that one of the guys from Rockstar being interviewed and stating that this wasn't going to be a western version of GTA5 or GTAO.  No he didn't commit to adding DLC, he did state at that time, that they was going to focus to give the single player campaign the same focus that they would put to the online content.  Which to me wasn't done, by the mere fact that they haven't paid 2 cents worth of attention to RDR2 since its release, once it came out they dropped everything to focus on RDO.  

I recall R* making several references to GTAV mainly prompted by people making comparisons to it because of its success.  ....and perhaps that they might sacrifice the quality of the SP experience to cash in on RDO.  R* was adamant that they wanted RDR2 and RDO to be a separate experience from GTAV/GTAO.  Also, that they were not going to skimp on the campaign.  R* continually stated that they love the SP experience in their games and enjoyed creating them.  .....and RDR2 was not going to be any different.   

In all honesty, R* completely delivered on RDR2 IMO.  It seems you just assumed something different than the point they were trying to make.  These comments also need to be taken into context which is why the article / interview you keep referring to would be helpful.

 

4 minutes ago, YodaMan 3D said:

For those that have a short memory, RDR was given attention as well as it's online game was.   Seeing how their actions have shown that are following the same routine that they did with GTA5.   

To be clear, they have did very well for RDO.  It has became a enjoyable experience compared to what it was at release.   It doesn't change the fact 60 to 100 hours is anywhere close to the amount of hours that you get from RDO.   

Well, RDR2 isn't RDR nor GTAV.  ......and again, they never said (that I know of) that they would be releasing DLC for the campaign like they do for RDO. 

No offense but it seems you are looking for reasons to blame them for you being unhappy that there is no DLC.  ....at least currently.

[YodaMan 3D]

14 hours ago, Kean_1 said:

I recall R* making several references to GTAV mainly prompted by people making comparisons to it because of its success.  ....and perhaps that they might sacrifice the quality of the SP experience to cash in on RDO.  R* was adamant that they wanted RDR2 and RDO to be a separate experience from GTAV/GTAO.  Also, that they were not going to skimp on the campaign.  R* continually stated that they love the SP experience in their games and enjoyed creating them.  .....and RDR2 was not going to be any different.   

In all honesty, R* completely delivered on RDR2 IMO.  It seems you just assumed something different than the point they were trying to make.  These comments also need to be taken into context which is why the article / interview you keep referring to would be helpful.

 

Well, RDR2 isn't RDR nor GTAV.  ......and again, they never said (that I know of) that they would be releasing DLC for the campaign like they do for RDO. 

No offense but it seems you are looking for reasons to blame them for you being unhappy that there is no DLC.  ....at least currently.

What I am fine.  The issue being is that it was stated that they would give the campaign the same attention as they give the online content.  They haven't.  They didn't guarantee anything other then they would give it the same attention.  To me game companies target larger and larger audiences with games and after release they only seem to want to focus on a smaller portion of that group.  

Yes campaign is nice.  Yes they didn't state what there end plan was.  They haven't gave any more attention to the campaign and focused totally on RDO.  There are plenty of gamers that jump for joy.  They used focus on both and now don't.    

[shiverz]

On 10/15/2019 at 9:48 AM, Kean_1 said:

I never heard that they committed to any kind of DLC for the campaign in RDR2.  I'm not sure why that keeps coming up to be honest.

As for the reasons why, folks can disagree with their choice but see my 10/3 response if you want to know why they said they don't have plans to include DLC with RDR2.  

I could have sworn they said something about it over the summer prior to RDR2's release in an interview. This is the internet though so maybe they hinted at it being possible but never wrote it in stone and people just took it as they were making it this time. 

[mizTik]

On 10/11/2019 at 11:37 PM, buttlint said:

I am guessing that they are not only working on getting the next game ready but they are busting their humps to get that game ready for the next platform in consoles. (PS5) From all reports, that's only a year away. I am pretty sure that these guys aren't going start making games a month before the new machines arrive. Now, is lead time.

 

Oh for sure. They want everything to be ready to go for the new console year one if they can, if not by 2021. I can't blame them. People are always in a buying frenzy the first 2 years a new console comes out.

[Ibarrola]

Hi to everyone. My take on this is that is a shame that R* doesn't take advantage of such large and beautiful world, at least with another tale as a sp experience. There are so many characters that could be developed and get their story told.