By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Red Dead Redemption 2 to lock 2 in-game missions behind Special Edition

Cobretti2 on 07 June 2018
KManX89 said:

https://www.vg247.com/2018/06/05/red-dead-redemption-2-special-ultimate-edition-locked-content/

Wow, Take-Two (the Rockstar parent company) really is cancer, and I mean EA/Activision/Konami level cancer. Selling shark cards for overpriced vehicles, bases, etc., locking haircuts and player progression behind grindy paywalls and now this? I had a sick feeling it was gonna have some kind of scummy monetisation in it and, well, I was right. I fucking called it when T2's shitbag CEO, Strauss Zelnick said they're "under monetising" gamers after the shit they pulled with GTAO and NBA 2K18. Releasing day 1 DLC AND only making it available for the special edition? AAA gaming has officially sunk to a new low.

NBA has been doing that for a while though, like 3-4 years now. i.e. get MJ and some coin, special signature moves etc..

I bought those games, mainly cause they were special edition and wanted an MJ cover lol.

I used my code like 2 years later. I still enjoyed the game without all the extras I paid for. Point I am making some of these extra are meh and you won't miss them.

NOW for missions being behind paywalls that kind of sucks and is pushing the bounds i think.

 

However

 



 

 

Around the Network
irstupid on 07 June 2018
shikamaru317 said:

Something I find highly ironic is that I'm pretty sure I saw some of the people in this thread who are complaining about the RDR2 Special Edition defend Sony paying for an hour of exclusive story mode content in an Assassin's Creed game a few years back, content which was never released on XB1 or PC. They say Rockstar isn't releasing the full game to everyone, and yet it was ok for Sony to pay Ubisoft to not release the full Assassin's Creed game on other platforms. I'm also pretty sure some of the people complaining about RDR2 in this thread defended Nintendo charging $60 for Let's Go Pikachu and Eevee recently, even though it has substantially less content than the $40 Pokemon Sun and Moon and Ultra Sun and Ultra Moon had (152 Pokemon as opposed to 302 in Sun/Moon and 403 in Ultra Sun/Ultra Moon, no breeding, etc.).

Seriously quit the argument about Let's Go Pikachu being a rip off compared to Ultra Sun/Moon.

First we don't know what is all in the game or not, and second its a handheld game versus a home conosle game. 

How about we look at Dragon Quest 11 for PS4 and 3DS. the PS4 version costs $60 and the 3DS version costs $40. Were the PS4 users being ripped off?

I suppose you'll be bitching at SE when FF7 releases part 1 for $60.00 I mean back in 1999 or whenever I could get FF7 complete for $60, and yet now you only get part 1 of 3 for $60. Talk about holding back content, what a fucking rip-off.



KManX89 on 07 June 2018
pokoko said:
KManX89 said:

Excuse me? Feeling "entitled" to something I paid for with my $60 purchase? If I pay full price for a game (and $60 is full price), I expect to get the full game. It's not "extra content", it was CUT content that they locked behind a SE to squeeze a few more dollars out of its customers. If it were truly extra content, it would've been worked on, finished and sold AFTER the game was already released, but that's not what happened here. It's stuff already in the game that they cut out and locked behind a paywall so they could hide behind "making it specifically for the SE", and yes, any content that was made to be sold before launch is, by definition, cut content.

That's bullshit.  You're not entitled to everything a creator works on before release.  I have no idea where that sense of entitlement came from but that's all it is.  It doesn't work that way in ANY industry or business.  This whole idea that production staff has to wait around aimlessly until after sometime hits the market is just silliness.

A consumer is entitled to is what is in the description of the product, not "everything that has been worked on until now".  At that point, a consumer can decide if the value is there or not.

Seeing how content made before release to completion is core content already in the base game and by paywalling it, the creator is, by definition, cutting said content and selling an incomplete game for full price. They can call it whatever they want ("selling content for the SE"), it's no different from a cake maker cutting out a slice of cake and selling it separately as "extra cake goodiness". By your own logic, I take it you'd be okay with music companies telling customers "oh, you have to pay an extra $2 a pop for tracks 8, 11 and 12 on that CD you bought" or a theater concierge walking in and saying "you guys want to stick around for the final half hour of the movie? That'll be an extra $5". 

And yes, it IS part of the initial purchase if it's already on the disc. Take Two/R* is literally charging buyers an extra $20 to unlock disc-locked content. Yeah, I'm pretty sure it's illegal to charge additional access fees to something a customer has already purchased and even if it's not, it's still slimy as hell.

On that note, YongYea made a video ripping T2/R* for their greedy antics:

Last edited by KManX89 - on 07 June 2018

KLAMarine on 08 June 2018
pokoko said:
KManX89 said:

Excuse me? Feeling "entitled" to something I paid for with my $60 purchase? If I pay full price for a game (and $60 is full price), I expect to get the full game. It's not "extra content", it was CUT content that they locked behind a SE to squeeze a few more dollars out of its customers. If it were truly extra content, it would've been worked on, finished and sold AFTER the game was already released, but that's not what happened here. It's stuff already in the game that they cut out and locked behind a paywall so they could hide behind "making it specifically for the SE", and yes, any content that was made to be sold before launch is, by definition, cut content.

That's bullshit.  You're not entitled to everything a creator works on before release.  I have no idea where that sense of entitlement came from but that's all it is.  It doesn't work that way in ANY industry or business.  This whole idea that production staff has to wait around aimlessly until after sometime hits the market is just silliness.

A consumer is entitled to is what is in the description of the product, not "everything that has been worked on until now".  At that point, a consumer can decide if the value is there or not.

Well put. If someone is unhappy with this lock, they can decide to not buy the product until the price comes down enough to finally justify a purchase or buy something else.



OdinHades on 08 June 2018

Just get yourself the complete Edition in 1 or 2 years for 20 bucks. No need to play that game at launch, there's plenty of other stuff.



Official member of VGC's Nintendo family, approved by the one and only RolStoppable. I feel honored.

Around the Network
pokoko on 08 June 2018
KLAMarine said:
pokoko said:

That's bullshit.  You're not entitled to everything a creator works on before release.  I have no idea where that sense of entitlement came from but that's all it is.  It doesn't work that way in ANY industry or business.  This whole idea that production staff has to wait around aimlessly until after sometime hits the market is just silliness.

A consumer is entitled to is what is in the description of the product, not "everything that has been worked on until now".  At that point, a consumer can decide if the value is there or not.

Well put. If someone is unhappy with this lock, they can decide to not buy the product until the price comes down enough to finally justify a purchase or buy something else.

Obviously.  All the power rests with the consumer in cases like this.  I can decline to buy this game because I think Rockstar is run by the Lizard People Illuminati, if I want.  It doesn't mean I'm right, just that I have that power at my discretion.  In this case, the OP thinks he is entitled to anything a creator creates as long as it is created before release, which simply isn't true.  Musicians often record more songs than are used on an album but the consumer isn't entitled to those.  Writers often have much of a sequel written before the first book is released but consumers aren't entitled to those pages.  Directors cut scenes from movies and then sell them in a new version later on but consumers aren't entitled to see those just because they bought the initial DVD release.

The thing that puzzles me the most is in situations like this with original content.  People like the OP are basically saying that they'd rather the extra content not exist at all rather than have the option to buy it or not.  That, to me, is ridiculous.