Hasn't this always been a rumor everyone says but can't actually find a source for?
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Red Dead Redemption 2 PC - Nov 5 (Rockstar Games Launcher, EGS, GMG, Humble and other digital retailers. Coming to Steam in December)
- Thread starter dex3108
- Start date
Hasn't this always been a rumor everyone says but can't actually find a source for?
I don't think it has little to do with power.
Rewriting the code for modern PC will be a major effort if the code is really a mess.
It came from someone at Rockstar, but it was likely just an excuse for not wanting to port it at the time.
brute force can overcome some optimization issues, the game was on PS3 and 360, most games on these platforms were successfully ported to PC,
also the 360 version runs on an emulator on the xbox one (very slow PC CPU), I'm not pretending I know all that is involved or that it's easy, but I don't think techinical limitations are a viable excuse, and it's not like it wouldn't sell, so they would make their money back for this port I think.
RDR1 already runs on emulator on PC. Buggy with huge FPS dips but it runs.
But as you said even the Xbox version runs in an emulator, which means that the game is most likely not easy to port due to using code that makes use of PS3 hardware.
I expect that they will never port it as a separate game but will instead make a RDR 1 DLC for RDR2. The game contains most of the RDR1 map and you can go ride in it but it's not very populated with I think only one side quest set in it. It would make sense to remake RDR 1 using the newer engine and all the benefits it offers while also extending the shelf life of RDR2 so they can expand on the online portion.
Getting most of preorder and early sales on the R* launcher and EGS for higher profits. With their own launcher they get 100% of the profits and EGS has probably again thrown cash in to get in on the action.
The real question is if Rockstar Launcher will be required even if you bought from Steam or EGS. GTA V had a huge annoyance where you had to use the R* Social Club launcher to run the game even when bought from Steam. The R* Launcher is less shit but it might still be launcher over launcher to support the RDR2 online features. Which in turn would make buying from R* directly the best way to play it as you would only need one launcher and for Steam Input support could just add the R* Launcher as a 3rd party "game" in Steam like I do right now for GTA V + Steam Controller.
We are talking about Rockstar. They can easily assign 10 - 20 people to fix RDR and have a version that could be sold going forward. I believe they don't do it because it will cannibalize their newer games which have a MTX component.
Lock on? Doesn't the game have option to turn on 100% free aim?
Yeah but it made the game unplayable without it for me. Will be great for online.
as a PC guy I've never played this series but it sounds like a game more about the overall experience and atmosphere of the Old West versus constant action and combat...I think I would enjoy it...Deadwood The Game
plus I want to see what all the hype is about...maybe not playing the first game will be a good thing as I won't have anything to compare it to...will go into RDR2 with a clean slate
plus I want to see what all the hype is about...maybe not playing the first game will be a good thing as I won't have anything to compare it to...will go into RDR2 with a clean slate
higher revenue cut on the people who absolutely want to have it day one without torching their long-term sales by cutting out Steam, which they know will still be highest selling platform for RDR2 PC by far in the long run. this isn't a paid EGS deal
Let's not get crazy here and insult the majesty that is Deadwood.
It's enough to buy the battle pass (35 gold bars) or all 3 new player Roles they've added in the new update (15 gold bars each). It's a worthwhile little bonus.
To put it into other terms, you get 0.2 Gold Bars for each Daily Challenge you complete. There are various ways of earning gold while you play (actually more than you'd think) but it's usually zero point something.
Not much tbh, but to be fair to R* they've improved online a lot since release.
I just don't get this reasoning. Epic is paying everybody on their store to launch on Steam later. Why wouldn't that still be the case here? Hell, why would R* let RDR2 go on the EGS store first for free when even stinkers like RollerCoaster Tycoon Adventures and Omen of Sorrow got paid? If your argument is this staggered release is to make more money, then you gotta conclude they also took an Epic payout to get... more money!
That's nonsense.
If this decision was about the sales revenue then of course the game would get released day1 on Steam as well because you get the highest overall revenue there. If this decision was about margins / cuts then the game would not release on GreenManGaming and Stadia (both take the exact same cut like Steam) or the HumbleStore (25%) or GameStop (no idea). There is not a single valid line of reasoning to explain this situation without the common Epic tactic to moneyhat and delay a Steam release because that's what literally already happened with other titles.
This is such a plea copping answer 😂. "Yeah, it came from a Rockstar employee but they obviously don't know what they're talking about"
This was at a time when Rockstar was treating the PC like it didn't exist. It's not very hard to draw conclusions.
Who knows what the deal is, but it's in Rockstar's financial interest to cut Steam out even if the EGS didn't exist. From their perspective they are just leaving money on the table for every Steam copy sold due to Valve's cut. By cutting Steam out for 30 days they have all the people that can't wait potentially buying it from their launcher instead, and then they can tap into Steam's player base for the long tail sales. I'd imagine the long term plan is to be like Blizzard and only offer their new games on their own launcher.
Rockstar knows that there is a huge pent up demand for this game. By cutting Steam out for the launch sales they will make much more money than they would if Steam was an option just because they get to pocket 100% of sales on their own launcher. The other stores selling the game are a tiny percentage of the digital marketplace, and likely will not affect their profits in a meaningful way.
There's literally (someone claiming to be) a former employee saying otherwise in this thread
So is this the usual Rockstar PC port shuffle like GTA V? Marginal improvements; delayed by a year for double dipping; and full priced at $60? It's really annoying to be treated like a second class platform, especially with the Epic/Steam marketplace shenanigans.
While it sucks to have to wait for their games, if this port is as good as the GTA V PC port everyone should be thrilled.
I have little doubt the move is beneficial in a similar way Ubisoft used EGS as a way to slowly get off Steam and move users to their own platform, but with the ability to make free money for advancing their own interests via Epic. Even supposing launching on Steam later is financially sensible for R*, they're obviously getting paid by Epic. There is a good financial reason for RDR2 to launch on their own store first. There is not one to also launch on EGS at the same time, unless you account for the fact that they got some extra scratch for it. I'll reiterate, if Epic is throwing money all over the place, why wouldn't one of the biggest games of all time be able to get in on the action? Why would they willingly refuse?
Here's the thing, no matter how much EGS would pay Rockstar it's likely Steam wanting a cut of the DLC money that is the real sticking point in that relationship. Shark Cards/Gold Bars are where the real money is long term. I'd imagine that the people that have to have it in the first 30 days are likely to be the same type of people to dump a lot of money into the game long term.
They do it because we all lap it up. GTA V is always in the top most played and bought Steam games, even now. It's crazy.
Of course it's made that way to make people double dip, but saying the GTA V PC port only had marginal improvements might be one of the worst takes of this thread. It's leagues above the PS4/XOne version that came out a year before.
I don't think this has much to do with the main point of the debate in this thread which is whether Epic paid R* or not. Those superfan potential whales don't also need the game to be sold on EGS to go out and buy it. Really, every argument brought up is immediately shot down by the fact that it would make way more sense to only launch on the Social Club as opposed to also on EGS unless Epic also paid for the right to say their store has RDR2 and Steam doesn't, if only for a month.
Edit: I'm wracking my brain trying to think of reasons R* might go EGS early for a month without getting paid, and here's the best I got. Feel free to use this argument. It's in their interest to help advance Epic in the hopes of causing pressure on Steam + console platforms to lower their cut. That said, I still think they'd also prefer an Epic check while doing this just because they can obviously get one.
Does EGS get a cut of DLC sales? If not then putting their game on EGS is a completely different proposition than Steam. Part of selling on Steam is that Valve gets a cut of all DLC sales for copies sold through Steam in perpetuity.
this is not just nonsense, it's errant nonsense. there is no steam base, epic base, RS launcher base. there is a steam-only base and a steam-and-other-launchers base. the way this current deal works, people who would have bought it if it was exclusive to Epic will buy it on Rockstar. why wouldn't they? they've already shown their willingness to go juggle multiple launchers, why go through an Epic middleman and not use the launcher integrated with the game?
the way this window works, no one buys it on EGS. period. because the launcher-agnostic market goes for RS, and the steam market waits the very very short period for steam. this does zero damage to steam. rockstar would never jeopardize their long-term steam revenue. that's worth more than anything Epic could pay them. as for the question of why launch on marginal storefronts that have a negligible impact on overall sales but drive traffic and installs to their launcher for activation: huh, I wonder why?
here's the two possible situations:
1) Rockstar decided to launch on the platforms that would maximize their day one revenue split without undermining their steam revenue in the long term. people buy the game on RS or Steam
2) Epic decided to pay for a one-month window for the privilege of having no one buy the game from them and doing zero damage to Steam. people still buy on RS or steam
epic isn't stupid. they know next to no one is buying this on EGS with the current arrangement. steam will still be the vast majority of PC sales for RDR2. rockstar launcher will be way behind that. EGS will sell basically nothing. Epic isn't a terrorist group designed to take out steam. they're a business, and this makes zero business sense.
A good question that is still irrelevant to whether there was an Epic payout. Whatever Epic's cut and DLC cut are are still a worse deal than just R*'s own store. Why would they launch on EGS at all?
I don't doubt that EGS paid for a one month no Steam deal, but I also don't doubt that EGS paid to get Rockstar to put it on their store rather than not getting it on their store at all.
Stadia must have done the same thing (didn't Stadia give Ubisoft money for Assassin's Creed Odyssey which they used to beta test Stadia?).
I'm betting Rockstar wants to see if not being on Steam hurts in any meaningful way. I'm seriously surprised they are releasing on Steam at all, they really don't need Steam. All that mtx and dlc money could be their own, without Steam almost everyone will buy it on Rockstar Store.
Eventually I bet the truth will come out, until then we can only speculate.
Stadia must have done the same thing (didn't Stadia give Ubisoft money for Assassin's Creed Odyssey which they used to beta test Stadia?).
I'm betting Rockstar wants to see if not being on Steam hurts in any meaningful way. I'm seriously surprised they are releasing on Steam at all, they really don't need Steam. All that mtx and dlc money could be their own, without Steam almost everyone will buy it on Rockstar Store.
Eventually I bet the truth will come out, until then we can only speculate.
Having RDR2 on EGS despite the fact that it's on R*'s store where most people will buy it month 1 still has a benefit for Epic. It further legitimizes their store (it would look stupid to not have one of the biggest games of all time on their store), and it also weakens the resolve of the Steam-only base that you mentioned. And no, they're obviously not a terrorist group hellbent on taking out Steam, but they are a business hellbent on taking out Steam. They've just hit more bumps in the road than they expected.
their store is already legitimized. they don't need Rockstar for that and this is a very very thin justification to pay millions for basically no revenue
no it doesn't. you vastly underestimate the willingness of the steam base to wait another month
no, again another misunderstanding that distorts the lens people see this through. they are a business hellbent on being successful and profitable and they see taking on steam as a tactic to achieve that. if they felt propping up steam was key to their bottom line, they would do it. tomorrow.
The question wasn't whether or not this would hurt Steam. The question was whether or not Epic paid again for a delayed release.
Also please stop quoting that tweet. He had also some follow up tweets onto that which he already deleted because they were false. This original one is also incorrect because a) the Steam margin would be 80% and not 70%, b) Stadia and GMG also take 30% (so 30% must be some kind of Schroedingers-Cut, good and bad at the same time) and c) probably the moneybag stuff.
This whole theory, that Steam gets a month delay for revenue or margin reasons, only works if you ignore that the game gets also released on Stadia, GreenManGaming, HumbleStore and GameStop. Don't ignore that.
you selectively quote a single sentence out of context. that's because the overall argument is bulletproof. there's nothing else to be said, really. this arrangement does nothing to hurt steam and it does nothing to benefit Epic since launcher-agnostic (epic's base) will go to RS, not EGS and the overall window isn't long enough for epic to care. the only thing this means is epic gets overshadowed. they wouldn't pay for it. period
conditional on milestones and still a higher cut, as zhuge said
can't speak to the Stadia situation as I'm not really as clued in on google's model or motives but I already addressed GMG. it's not an equivalent to epic, it's a traffic driver to their platform. same gamestop situation, why PS sells their physical codes in-store and not just direct from their platform
provide evidence he deleted tweets or retract
This very thread. Post #608. Note: you can't read deleted tweets.
I don't have a capable gaming PC atm, but I can't wait for all those delicious HQ screenshots. 😀
You can't say nobody will buy one of the biggest games of all time on their store and also say their store is already legitimized. They are throwing money at the wall to make people more comfortable with not using Steam. This being their goal is obvious when you look through a variety of Tweets by notable people at Epic calling the coming of their store as the beginning of a "multi-store world". Epic definitely is trying to take out Steam and supplant EGS as the go to store for games on PC and as evidence I put forward basically every single public word Sweeney and Galyonkin have said about anything pertaining to Steam for the past 12 months (and before, when Galyonkin was writing articles about Steam for the Steam Spy site before he was publicly known to be working for Epic). You can't just say "Epic is a business therefore their only goal is to make money", then deny that their goal is to hurt Steam when that is obviously the main way to achieve their business goal of making money just obfuscated by one layer.
Now, nowhere did I argue that their strategy of throwing money at the wall was working well. It's not and I'm certainly not buying games on EGS as opposed to just waiting a year for Steam. I don't even buy Oculus games to play using Revive. But this is Epic's strategy. They probably just assumed this would all work better than it is.
And getting back to the question of whether Epic paid R* for a paltry month of exclusivity I'll line up what we do know again. Epic historically pays devs to be on their store and not on Steam for some period of time. Epic pays big games more. Why would one of the biggest games of all time not get a deal? Why would R* not argue they should get a deal? I feel like we've lost the plot somewhere.