Red Dead 2 : Would Story DLC/Expansions have been more successful than Red Dead Online?

[s y]

From as best as I can tell, Red Dead Redemption 2's online component has been moderately successful. The player population is well below the monster online games like GTA/Destiny 2/Apex/Fortnite/Dead by Daylight/COD/RL etc but thousands of people play.

Rockstar has continued to support it and from a glance, it doesn't seem that they've ever really hit it out of the park with any of the updates, they've also separated the online client from the singleplayer game. The next season of the game is due sometime this spring.

Obviously Red Dead 2 is a gigantic success and has made T2/R* billions and at the very least, Red Dead Online has been profitable as it continues to be supported.

Primarily single player games have offered post release content such large DLC like The Witcher 3's Blood and Wine, Bethesda's expansions for TES/Fallout or you have Single Player Service games like Assassin's Creed and other Ubisoft titles. Recently other titles have released stand alone expansions like Uncharted Lost Legacy/Miles Morales to much success.


Do you think that additional story/single player content would have been more successful than Red Dead Online's current state? Defining success as "more profitable" here.

 

[Linus815]

T2 keeps saying RDO is performing above expectations during earning calls, so... i doubt sp dlc wouldve been more successful, as much id have loved it

 

[ASleepingMonkey]

Undeniably, especially because they haven't given it much worthwhile support. I think it would've been so much better. Financially, who knows? Microtransactions probably do well for them.

 

[Sign My Guestbook!]

Online easily more lucrative. Easily.

 

[Anth0ny]

Hard to say. Sadly, after the success of GTA Online, there's no way they weren't going to try the exact same thing with RDR2 and Red Dead Online.

i say.... why not both

 

[Deleted member 16876]

Not sure but I wish they made it instead of RD Online.

 

[GalvoAg]

why not both

Click to shrink...

 

[CountAntonio]

They don't really put much work into it and I'm sure it still makes them a lot of money especially with it going for 5 dollars not long ago.

 

[Ryuelli]

Based on a small sample size of me and me alone, absolutely. I've put 0 time into RDR Online, but I'd totally be down for an Undead Nightmare-esque expansion.

 

[Ramirez]

As hard as it is for me to wrap my head around anyone spending real money in that online mode based on what I played, I know it's made them tons of money.

 

[Anth0ny]

It would be so awesome if they gave us something Uncharted Lost Legacy/Miles Morales length. Or basically as long as the game's epilogue. Sadie's Adventures. Of course they could at the same time roll a bunch of new content into Online as well and milk us for all we're worth.

Damn it rockstar

 

[Marvo Pandoras]

Is RDR2 Online playable? I thought it's full of griefers.

 

[hydruxo]

RDR2 Online didn't seem to do that well compared to GTAO, but even an underperforming online mode for Rockstar is probably super profitable. I definitely would've rather seen them do story DLC as opposed to online stuff.

 

[Chief Malik]

Pretty sure it was said that single player dlc in general didn't do well and the last time they did it, it was for GRA, a much bigger series and it didn't do well enough for them to consider doing it again. Even without GTA online, we still never would have received dlc.

 

[StrappingYoungLance]

RDO likely costs less to make and has just as much if not more money making potential.

Would I prefer single player DLC? Sure. I've barely spent ten minutes with RDO. I don't think it would be more successful though.

 

[Classy Tomato]

I'm gonna guess adding content for RDO is cheaper and easier than creating a new DLC or expansion packs, so R* decided to do the former.

I wish they remake the first RDR though. Much of the work has already been done in RDR 2, so it's almost a no-brainer. And they can easily charge $60 for the game. But who knows with R*.

 

[Gray]

Don't know if it would be successful, but I would buy it. Haven't even touched RD online.

 

[Deleted member 56752]

RDO likely costs less to make and has just as much if not more money making potential.

Would I prefer single player DLC? Sure. I've barely spent ten minutes with RDO. I don't think it would be more successful though.

Click to shrink...

there's literally no way on earth take two will let them ever do a single player dlc ever again. either make the next huge thing or work on online MTX/updates. that's it.

 

[a Master Ninja]

Don't know if it would be successful, but I would buy it. Haven't even touched RD online.

Click to shrink...

This. I buy Rockstar games for the singleplayer content, but I suppose I'm part of a rapidly shrinking group.

 

[NateDog]

RDR2 Online didn't seem to do that well compared to GTAO, but even an underperforming online mode for Rockstar is probably super profitable. I definitely would've rather seen them do story DLC as opposed to online stuff.

Click to shrink...

Basically this. GTAO racks them up incredible sums of money every week through MTX so I don't think you could ever expect RDRO would do the same, but even a fraction of it (especially if they're not putting much effort into it) would still mean they're doing brilliantly financially at least. Would love to see a DLC expansion and I think there are lots of options with something like that for RDR2 but it's just not worth the effort for them these days. I'm convinced if GTAO never began to make the crazy money it still does that we'd have had GTAVI by now, or if not that then we'd be a lot closer to it.

 

[craven68]

For me yes, i would have put money on dlc story ...i don't play online games a lot.

 

[ArchLector]

Controversial opinion here but I love Rockstar's approach - they put out a complete, insanely long, polished and ambitious single player game. I much more prefer that than parceling out things in DLC/expansions (looking at you DA I).

And no. Obviously RDO makes them more money.

 

[inner-G]

I don't k ow how much online made, but I have over 100hrs into the game and have never played it online

I would have paid for single player DLC.

 

[ThreepQuest64]

I want to say yes but sadly it's not.

 

[Linus815]

Also yeah in all fairness RDR 2's story mode already feels like it has DLC integrated with the epilogue chapters... it's easily the longest rockstar game ever. As much as I'd (still) love a single player expansion, the devs really went the extra mile and then some with the story mode in this game

 

[JoeNut]

Online is more lucrative in the long run if you get a real hit, but many people bought RDR2 for the story, not to play online, and I think they could've easily put together a short, story dlc and sold millions of copies without a huge amount of work required.
Half the dlcs released are probably story's that got cut from the main stories in games anyway, I'm sure they could've done that if they wanted to.

 

[inner-G]

Online is more lucrative in the long run if you get a real hit, but many people bought RDR2 for the story, not to play online, and I think they could've easily put together a short, story dlc and sold millions of copies without a huge amount of work required.
Half the dlcs released are probably story's that got cut from the main stories in games anyway, I'm sure they could've done that if they wanted to.

Click to shrink...

I wonder how much manpower something like a new Undead Nightmare would have taken?

 

[softie]

If your whaling's good, it will always beat larger DLCs.

 

[Dan Thunder]

Doubt it. Didn't Undead Nightmare sell around 2-3 million copies in the end? A continuous stream of people coughing up in RDR Online will be far more profitable. I imagine after nearly two and a half years the income from the online component has far surpassed anything some single-player DLC would bring in.

 

[Santar]

The games story was already long to begin with so not sure about that.
Personally I'd jump on a offline playable Red Dead Online in a heartbeat if they'd ever sell me that. Just living in and doing cowboy stuff in the world was the most fun I had in that game and Red Dead online has fleshed out that part considerably with a lot more stuff to do and progression. Would love to play it but I don't rent games.
I always found the games story missions the worst part of it since they were so extremely linear, almost like they were in direct opposition to the rest of the game that was so open.

 

[Chille]

Single player dlc does not sell that well, and the longer from original release to dlc lowers the amount bought. Online service allows for a more constant income stream thus desire to make content for even more money.

 

[Astrates]

I would love it if the SP DLC would do better but let's be honest, the online will make them more.

Definitely a shame as I'd love to see some Singleplayer DLC, even half as good as what we got for RDR1 or GTA IV would be great.

 

[Arn]

I wouldn't rule out some additional nugget of single player content when the inevitable next-gen version arrives.

But as others have said the online component is way more efficient to run from a headcount, asset creation, revenue point of view. Especially at the standard with which Rockstar make content. Narrative driven single player content is a real burden for their teams to make.

 

[Bungie]

It's not even a question which would make more money for Take-Two. I imagine a lot of people are just voting on what they would prefer, i.e. single player expansions

 

[Goldbob]

No lol

 

[DreamRunner]

RDO is trash.It's obvious that R* doesn't give a shit about it.They keep releasing low effort "Outlaw" passes every 3-5 months and want players to invest actual money in it, but there's nothing to do in the online once you max out the roles.

 

[Samiya]

I think there's more money in games as service model, which RDO is much more in line with. But I don't have the numbers.

 

[wellpapp]

Online will always be stronger in the long run. These polls only show player wants lol. Of course I'd also want a RDR1 Remake etc. but that's just fantasy.

 

[Kill3r7]

Nope. There is plenty of data out there to suggest that few people bought DLCs and the annual revenue figures suggest mtxs are far more profitable than DLC.

 

[Hootie]

I've played RDO hundreds of hours and never once felt the need to buy gold bars (unlike GTAO). I think single player DLC would have been more lucrative for them in this case

 

[dogbox]

I certainly would have liked the story DLC more! But nah, I'm sure they made the right call business wise. RDO seems to do quite well and will probably continue to!

 

[Vault]

the game was long enough it didn't need even more

 

[ket]

I don't really know what singleplayer DLC would be about to make it compelling

Spoiler

sadie and charles stories were both pretty complete and i wouldnt need a dlc campaign to show them doing what they already told john what they were going to do

 

[Glio]

I think you have to be a bit self-absorbed not to see that Online is going to make a lot more money. There is a difference between personal taste and the market. I would prefer SP expansions but it's obvious why they don't.

 

[ghostcrew]

RDO easily.

It's fine to prefer single player content but there's zero argument that RDO makes them more revenue than a single $30 DLC here. And they presumably have the numbers from releasing single player content for GTAIV and RDR1 and the face that they're only doing online stuff for GTAV and RDR2 speaks volumes.

To put this in to context, each Role in RDR2 costs around $15 (presuming you aren't subsidising it with Gold you've earned through playing) and there are five of them at this point. They also have a Battle Pass running every few months which also costs around $15 and they're on their fifth one of those at the moment.

If you've bought all of the roles (which seems pretty normal for RDO2 players. They're the meat of the content now) and bought into each Battle Pass then, ignoring any Gold that you've earned/got back from the Outlaw Pass, that's about $150 spent already. And there'll be a new Player Role and a new Battle Pass along soon. There's constantly something to spend your money on. And not in a terrible way - the game has new content arriving fairly regularly (actually not as regularly as a lot of players would like) because it's a live game and players like it.

Not to mention the regular stuff that costs Gold (ie real money) like cosmetics, new horse stuff, weapons, emotes etc.

RDO2 is a cash cow.

 

[SliChillax]

The idea is even if single player dlc sells the same as online dlc, it cost more to make. That's why it also never happened with GTA V

 

[Chief Malik]

It's not even a question which would make more money for Take-Two. I imagine a lot of people are just voting on what they would prefer, i.e. single player expansions

Click to shrink...

 

[BrickArts295]

You know the weird thing is, R* has supported both GTA V and RDR2 with "story expansions", they are just part of the online and you kinda have to make the effort to experience them; like playing with players who actually know what to do in certain heist, which I'll it can be deal breaker for most people who have to play with randoms.
I was surprised by how much story there were in a lot of the heists/random missions in GTA V. Same goes for some of the story mission in Red Dead Online.

 

[MeltedDreams]

GTA IV dlc's even had physical release and R* were not happy with sales numbers.. Thing is, most people move on once they finish the story. RDR Online is not big success but i wouldn't doubt R* has already made much more money from MTX than what they could earn with SP dlc.
It sucks, i want Undead Nightmare 2 so badly, but at the end of the day we should deal with it. X(