Red Dead is Dead

Peaceful may he rest

My god, I didn't think they'd do it. At least not all official, like. I always figured that Rockstar would just silently move on from Red Dead without so much as saying a word, but instead they have officially declared their utmost failure to make anything out of RDR's post launch support and have now devoted all spare resources to the recently confirmed Grand Theft Auto Six. (As though we needed confirmation that Grand Theft Auto Six was coming.) So that means no more online content, no single player DLC that some people genuinely believed was coming for some strange reason, (it's like they thought this was a game made by any other modern company ever) and no Undead Nightmare style re-release; which I predicted myself. RDR2 is a game that launched as it was and stubbornly refused to evolve or adapt to the long changed world around her until it was forcibly put out to pasture. Which is... damn, if that isn't a perfect microcosm of the Van Der Linde gang's story, I don't know what is.

Now to be clear, this is not a move from Rockstar to devote all of their resources into GTA 6. That wouldn't do. No, instead they're literally just gutting the RDR Online team because GTA Online can enjoy that same rampant support that they've had since launch. As someone who has played a lot of both GTA Online and Red Dead Online; this is pretty much the sucky-est of all endings. GTA Online, the game which has lived through it's high point and cleanly jumped the shark an eon ago, gets to live on and Red Dead Online; the game which felt like it was just starting to form a vaguely coherent idea of where it wanted to go in life, is abandoned. Heck, we never even got to finish the main storyline which the online mode launched with in order to avenge some dead woman's husband or some such; they seriously couldn't throw a chain of story missions together for us as a going away present? Damn, I think Rockstar might actually hate it's Red Dead fans.

Not that such would be a shock for any fan to learn, what with the way we've been treated by Rockstar. From the beginning it felt like Rockstar simply weren't happy with how we choose to play their game (nerfing their own log-in chain bonus to cut earn rates to ribbons), struggled to figure out new ways to monetise and keep the world fresh with activities (defaulting to selling an add-on pack to an already released job for an extra flat fee) and held no interest in weathering the hard times in order to make it to the smooth plains. (They'd make horrible frontier's men.) Because let's be honest; Rockstar's biggest competitor was really themselves with the massively successful and forever growing GTA Online ecosystem. And that success has blinded them to what it feels like to be a normal developer who has to work to make their systems tick with the audience and who aren't rewarded for everything they do, especially the mistakes. (Oh, to have the capacity to fail upwards!)

And to rub salt into the wound, this failed venture to try and make 'GTA Online 2' out of Red Dead consumed the team so totally that they never even considered a proper revamp re-release of their game like what Rockstar used to do before their infinite money tree reached full maturity. Remember 'Episodes From Liberty City'? How cool was half of that? How about their impromptu but increadibly fun wild west zombie game? What could the creative heads at Rockstar pulled out of their wide-brim hats if they'd allowed themselves to channel those levels of resources and shrewd minds? Another globetrotting success, no doubt! But would it have maximised the 'heavy success for minimal work' model? Mmm... perhaps not. Guess that made the idea long doomed and dead on arrival, huh.

What gets me is the fact that rather obviously, the Rockstar developers totally ran out of ideas when it came to building this online world, despite hardly even starting to lay their first foundations. There was no 'lawmen' mode added the game to counteract the 'bounty hunter' profession, no gang-themed mission threads following any of the fleshed out groups from the main campaign, or even some basic ranch-hand jobs for those that want to be boring. Why not? Aren't as Read Dead 2 fans best known for liking the boring? It just astounds me that it seems Rockstar literally had no plan when it came to working with this mode, despite knowing how much that very problem hindered the early growth of GTA Online. Isn't 'learning from you own mistakes' an increadibly key fundamental tenet of adulthood? Have GTA devs still to learn how to grow up?

Oh and make absolutely no mistake about the way that Rockstar has framed this, almost trying to make it sound like the Red Dead Online infrastructure has reached it's long destined conclusion; this was a failure on the developer's end. Remember, they literally wrote a main narrative of missions that they never got around to concluding, and the only major single-themed update the team ever released was the Moonshinerers expansion. Such an expansion did prove, however, that there was potential in this mode if only the team had the creativity to exploit it. Instead they'll save all of that for the easier to work with Online world of GTA Online. Just throw in some casinos, make a deal with Dr Dre, and call it all a day.

So from here it very much seems that the world is going to have to wait until GTA 6 for the death of GTA Online; providing that Rockstar even remembers what 'risk-taking' is at that point. For all we know they might just bite the bullet and try to run 'GTA Online' and what I can only assume will be 'GTA Online 2' simultaneously so as to not risk losing any active players in the transition. For all the whining that people make about Skyrim being an old game that keeps getting it's rerelase, at least Bethesda let that game shine on it's merits instead of trying to reimagine it so often that the original premise is unrecognisable. You know that the next GTA Online update is about uncovering some super secret criminal conspiracy? Shouldn't we be running the conspiracy? Who are the good guys and bad buys anymore? Or GTA Online just an MMO?

And so until the grand and proud return of Red Dead for Redemption 3; a game in which I can only assume you play as a farmer who's crops grow in real time, GTA's horse riding cousin is good as laid to rest. The technological achievements of Red Dead Redemption 2 will go untested by the team who will instead focus on ol' faithful and the Red Dead community can mourn their abandoned game to a crowd of dead and listless ears. I will not hide how disappointed I am in the lack of drive from one of the most storied developers of the industry, but thus is increasingly standard in an industry ruled by monetisation fetishism. Maybe the next Red Dead Redemption can affix all of us with a money IV to fund the development time and make it worthwhile for Rockstar. Just cut to the chase, ya know?

Is Red Dead Online Doomed?

 Probably yes.

Red Dead Redemption 2 was the smash hit single player swan song industry-influencing game that everyone pretty much hoped it would be, and given that the half of the dream team who lead the project, the brother who wrote that game, has now retired- it might just be Rockstar's last smash-hit release ever. (Not saying that's a definite, but I just think it's prudent we all brace ourselves for that reality.) With Grand Theft Auto Online not just proving to Rockstar how the billions are really made, but slowly diverting more and more resources directly to it's maintenance, it may not be too long before the critical darling single player games simply don't have the standing behind them to be mounted by the studio anymore. But here's me threating about the questionable future of Rockstar as a single player developer, when right now they've already let the ball seriously drop when it comes to maintenance of the titles already on hand. Notably, that of Red Dead Online.

Launched as a companion piece to Red Dead Redemption 2, RDO promised to take everything that made GTA Online a success and port it to their fertile old west world, meaning constant updates, new big content drops, attention, and a reason to switch on the console every week or so. Grand Theft Auto Online took a while to get it's footing in that regard, but now it has so many drops every month or so that there's genuinely work needed to be done to refit certain UI menus in order to hold it all. We're talking mod-menu levels of new cars, clothing, properties, missions and just reasons to endless grind. Even when having to deal with the endless hackers, bad network connections, and abandoned old content that could really use some updating in order to remain as rewards as new stuff. Now imagine all of those negatives I just mentioned, only without the influx of content to tide people over through the frustrations. I've just spelled out your typical day playing Red Dead Online, you can see why the game is slowly dying then, can't you?

Players of Red Dead 2 just aren't ready to lay down and except that, however. Even when their community drops off, their game loses relevance, and Rockstar celebrates the new year with a double XP event instead of anything worthwhile whatsoever. Thus began the 'Save Red Dead Online' hashtag petition that demands some sort of action on the storied developer's end, and which will result in absolutely no substantial change in the long run. (But at least the community can rest assured that they died screaming. Isn't that all anyone can ask for?) News reports have been written, folk who long abandoned the game have dipped their toes back in for a little, and Rockstar proper gave a little stir from their seats before going back to counting the piles of GTA Online money. Because I'm sorry to be the cold water on this hopeful parade; but Red Dead Online is never going to be GTA Online, Rockstar can't be bothered to even try to make it so.

Over the years Rockstar have revealed that they really don't care about the conceit of the game in question when it comes to supporting their online endeavours, so even when we're talking about a crime simulator, you'll have grand expansions that make you a secret agent with flying bikes and orbital lasers. Themes are unimportant, selling shark cards are. It's a lazy creative ideas process that scores high return, the perfect sort of business model. Red Dead doesn't have that flexibility. You can't add time travelling rocket trains, or slap a new purchasable minigun in the weapon store; the team has to make specifically western style content for their online world, and you can see how that's stumped them to no end.

Red Dead Online's biggest, and only, content has come in the form of 'roles'. Sold as roleplay jobs that players can take on to add some progression to the fictional life they want to live, but playing out just like the latest GTA expansion, roles are what bought Trading, (hunting with extra steps) Collecting (literally just finding collectibles) Naturalism (hunting with less killing) and Bounty Hunting (self explanatory) into the game cycle. Oh, and they weren't in the base game. The only long-term progression the game holds, and it came after launch. (Troubling.) Later the team would add Moonshining (the trader role with a mission chain attached to it) and... bounty hunting again? Bare in mind that accessing each of these roles requires a heft chunk of premium currency (thus a lot of grinding) and you can start to see why people don't take kindly to the fact that Rockstar ran of ideas so quickly they're now charging for updates to existing roles. (Did you even really try?)

The lack of effort permeates everything in Red Dead Online, from the main story of the online mode which was introduced with the main game and hasn't been followed since, (nothing major has resolved in that little quest thread so far) the terribly unbalanced ingame economy which rewards any non-role mission with a pittance so poor it's more profitable to loot corpses than complete world missions, a buggy camping system which makes some of the roles genuinely frustrating to even attempt (having the trader progress reset at least once a day is a bit of a mood killer) and then the sheer lack of things to try and buy once you have stuck out everything. There's no gameplan for this live service, and without that it's no wonder that the team have all but given up on the project to go back to the golden goose. They can bring Dr Dre in on that! What celebrity cameo can they possibly cook up for Red Dead? Resurrected Robert E.Lee? Nah, he was already dead 20 years before RDR 2- there's just nowhere near as much potential.

Or at least that's how the Red Dead team must be thinking, but the community disagrees and they actually have some cool ideas to cook up. If only Rockstar wasn't so obsessed with their image as untouchable models of the AAA industry to actually listen to their fans, maybe they'd see countless of paths worth dedicating just a tiny bit of resources to in order to make Red Dead a revenue stream to rival GTA Online! Okay, maybe the potential isn't that promising, but they could be making extra millions with RDO and I can't think of any reason that wouldn't be appealing to Rockstar heads. (They can do with an extra summer home for when the other 3 are being fumigated, can't they?) It'll just take a little dedicated, some work to put actual progression in the game, and just a smidge of commitment. Does Rockstar still know how to do that? Commit to something that isn't spitting out annual billion dollar cheques to them just yet? I doubt.

So the hanging noose over the community asks a question, "Is Red Dead Online doomed"? It seems insane to say for a such a ripe setting that hasn't even begun to have it's depths plumped, but the answer is a pretty clear 'yes'. Rockstar aren't interested in supporting this game the way it needs to in order to sustain a viable audience and all the browbeating will achieve is keeping the fire for this game burning a little brighter so that it's agonising death will last just that bit longer. Somehow the big R aren't interested in putting in the work, and when what's there isn't nearly enough, nothing but solid and concerted work is going to put Red Dead Online where it needs to be. I don't like being a fatalist, but there are other hills to die on and if Rockstar aren't bothered to fight for this game then the fight is pretty much lost before it's started. But kick up a ruckus all you want, light a signal fire, call for help at the top of your lungs; maybe you'll set an example for the next live service which rolls around trying to follow the Rockstar example: you have to be willing to improve the game in order to keep the service afloat. That's... well it's kind of the whole point of the 'live service' thing. (Seriously, what where Rockstar even thinking?)

Red dead Online: Endgame

One doesn't think about 'fun' when bringing balance to the Endgame.

Not too far back I remember getting really heavily into Red Dead Redemption 2's Online features, just as I did with GTA Online back in the day. It honestly does fascinate me for the reason that these particular Online experiences mimic the stylings of your typical MMO/Live Service and yet still appear to be entirely distinct entities as of themselves. Even folk who find themselves deadset against all things 'live service'-ey seem to be able to make an exception for a little of Rockstar's Online games in their life, and I wanted to explore just why that was. That meant taking an objective look at all the individual elements which made up RDR Online and seeing where they excelled and where they fell short and, unsurprisingly, there was one huge omission from the base product; the endgame.

'Endgames' are a very important aspect of 'Live Services' as they represent the point at which the player has overthrown all the pedestrian challenges of the main game and then must submerge themselves into the nitty gritty of higher play. In MMO's like The Elder Scrolls Online, this would mean grinding different dungeons and Raids in hopes of getting the exact right roll on your gear which will make your specific class pop. In looter-shooters like Borderlands this would mean playing through the campaign on various raised difficulty settings in order to roll the best guns with the right stats. For open world live-services like Red Dead and GTA, however, what can you really grind for? All the games really have to lust for are new outfits and/or horses; so what's going to keep you coming back for more? When Grand Theft Auto Online first launched, the answer to that question was absolutely nothing at all, and somehow Red Dead Online launched with the exact same failing.

Later on in GTA O's life, the game was finally blessed with an endgame in the form of a multi-stage heist. This was essentially a raid-difficulty scenario that required peerless teamwork and communication, as well as a substantial up-front investment,in order to pull off. Of course, the endgoal of this content was still just to acquire an influx of cash, buy that money ended up going towards some of the new content that Rockstar would be adding throughout that game's life cycle. Each new chunk of content would come with an in-game money barrier that would either require high-level grinding or a back-door microtransaction to get in. This was the endgame loop that would go on to make GTAO the most profitable game of all time whilst keeping fans entertained for as long as humanely possible. So it would only be fitting for Red Dead to follow that example, right?

Except it would seem that Rockstar hit a bit of a roadblock with RDO, because that hasn't been what they've done with the game. (At least not exactly.) There is still a substantial monetary roadblock that is set-up between players and new content, but there's no high-level raid-esque content to grind through, and that really does hurt the desire to partake in the traditional gameplay loop. When the first new gameplay update was added to the game, professions, (although Bounty Hunter was the only one really worth paying attention to) players were met with a hard moneywall of Gold bars in order to take part, which could only be overcome with days worth of grinding. (Or a microtransaction backdoor.) I'd imagine that anyone who actually had a braincell to work with would have instinctively been repulsed by such a proposition and thus would have spent their free time on any number of other games that seems to treat them with respect, but I'm a sucker and so I went for it. (So I can relay that it took roughly 2 weeks of 3-4 hours a day of play time.)

But was it all worth it in the end to get ahold of the Bounty Hunter license? Pretty much, but honestly this sort of content feels like it should have been in the game at launch. Bounty Hunting in Red Dead Online pretty much boils down to this; you roll up to any town and pull a wanted poster off the wall, afterwhich your bounty will spawn in a location near to you and it's up to you to proceed however you want to. (Dead or Alive, and all that.) Complication can arise, such as locations in which your target is yet to arrive, requiring you to stake out the spot, or even situations where the bounty is currently in the middle of a high-speed train robbery, making your job just that much more high octane. The point is, these bounties can be taken one after the other and they form the backbone of a gameplay loop that should have been available to everyone at launch, rather than something that people had 'earn' through boring themselves silly.

That isn't all that the Bounty Hunter mode had to offer. You see, whilst Red Dead Online has yet to implement anything on the shear scale of GTA's Heist's, they did implement high difficulty missions in the form of 'legendary bounties' that were easily the most challenging content in the game. The targets would all be fleshed out with an introductory cutscene and a specially made mission, and would all require a different level of care to be taken by the hunter in order to successfully reach them. One target may have you scale a hill in order to take a heavily defended point whilst your target, a trained sniper, rains down lead on you; whilst another might have you battle wolves and bears in the middle of a snow storm while they make their grand escape. Additionally, everytime you fell one of these targets you are treated to another shot at it with an increased difficulty level which could translate to anything from giving every enemy a more powerful gun to requiring the capture of additional targets on the field.

If there was one let-down for this whole affair, which stops me short of declaring this content raid-esque, it's significant incentive for completing each mission. Sure, the player will be treated to the odd boost in revenue but it's barely more than could be earned by simply grinding missions in the same amount of time and so it makes these challenges feel somewhat redundant. There's not even some special medal or achievement to be collected by doing these, it's just a challenge for challenge's sake. It's for this reason that I keep finding myself worried about Rockstar's ability to keep Red Dead Online feeling fresh if they can't master the basic routine for hooking players, I've already grown sick of the whole routine in a fraction of the time it took for me to feel the same way about GTA Online. How long until others start to follow suit?

Of course, I'm not the expert on this topic, in fact if we're talking about pure success in this market than no one is actually more qualified than Rockstar in putting together this sort of game, but that doesn't make them immune to mistakes. The main dev team have likely already come back from their break and are hard at work creating the next industry disrupter and the GTA Online team have clearly moved their talents back to working on their game, leaving the Red Dead Live team to work by themselves and currently I'm not sold on their talents. This year will really shine a light on their ability to pull out something special on amass a following for this title that's even a fraction as loyal as the GTA O audience, and I, for one, will be really interested to see what the team has up their sleeves. Perhaps Red Dead Online will be the next big online game of 2020, but that will be a title hard won and even harder kept.

Cyberpunk Multiplayer

This is getting out of hand, now there are two of them!

I think that it's fair to say that CD Projekt Red's Cyberpunk 2077 is the most anticipated game of the past few years. Everybody has said their two piece in this matter. "The game looks revolutionary", "Like Deus Ex gone free roam", "CDPR's done it again!" All this positive coverage has blossomed and thrived despite the game not having released yet. Don't get me wrong, I have the fullest of faith in the CDPR team to pull of a spectacular game, afterall they've done it before, however I find it odd that we're still 6 months out from release and the conversation has already shifted to the follow-up game. With that in mind, let's look at Cyberpunk's prospective online mode.

For those unfamiliar with this project's history, fans became aware of a potential for online capabilities all the way back during the first presentation regarding the game. (I am choosing not to consider the original CG trailer as a 'presentation'.) In the slides, we saw many prospective features that were all we had to go on for figuring out what this mysterious game would hold for us. Many of these bullet points would end up getting scrapped in the following years of tumultuous development, but one which survived the editor's scalpel, apparently, was the line hinting at "seamless online functionality".

We wouldn't hear anymore until legal documents were filed in Poland detailing a framework for these kind of systems. At the time, you must remember, it had been several years since we'd last heard peep about Cyberpunk, and so everyone's imagination ran absolutely wild with speculation. From what I read at the time, I believe that the general consensus was that the online would be something similar to what we were promised for Watch_Dogs' online mode. (As opposed to the annoying system that we got.) We were expecting the type of game wherein other players could drop into our world without our knowledge and mess around with things or help us out to their discretion. Perhaps you could work together to pull of missions or subvert someone else's mission to your own profit. (This was the wild west of ideas.) A lot of people were excited about the possibilities of a seamless online component, whilst others, such as myself, were more worried that such a system would ruin the entire CD Projekt open world experience that we had come to love from the Witcher. Remember, we had played Watch_Dogs, we knew how seamless online could be incredibly disruptive if handled poorly. (So glad Ubisoft bought it back for Watch Dogs 2...)

However, as the years went by and people started to doubt if we'd ever get Cyberpunk at all, conservative estimates were assuming that such a feature would surely be cut. When Cyberpunk had a resurgence at E3 2018, this seemed to be all but confirmed. At this point we'd already seen Jason Schrier's exploratory report into the strife fueled development of this game. If there was ever a better example of "Building on wet concrete", (To use a quote coined in 'Getting over it with Bennet Foddy') I can't think of it. Every year the vision for the game seemed to shift dramatically with themes and features being torn out or put back in at random. Originally the game was penned at being a third/first person experience, similar to Bethesda titles, however that proved unfeasible with the scope of what they had planned, so they scrapped it. Wouldn't it make sense for the same to happen to an online mode that we hadn't heard anything about for years and which didn't even get a mention during the reveal trailer? Apparently not.

I say this because, almost a full year later, we now have confirmation that a Cyberpunk 2077 online game is on the slate due to an open casting call that CD Projekt Red made through their Twitter. The thing most certainly exists and CDPR are serious enough about it that they art willing to announce it on a public forum. (You could argue that they kind of did that years ago with their presentation and that amounted to nothing; but with the main game finally just around the corner, I'm more willing to give them the benefit of the doubt now.) Although, it's hard to say whether this will be an inbuilt game mode, similar to how things work with Rockstar's online games, or a standalone title altogether. (As a survivor of the 'FF15: Comrades' debacle, I pray for the latter.)

It's hard, nigh on impossible, to predict how this kind of multiplayer will play out considering that the main game hasn't even landed, but let's throw accuracy and caution to the wind and make some speculation. Firstly, we know that the game plan with Cyberpunk is for CDPR to release the game, load it with single player DLCs (some of which will be free) and then move onto the multiplayer release. (Which would seem to imply that the Multiplayer will be an integrated component of the Cyberpunk main game, but considering they only started openly hiring as soon back as September I think it's safe to say that things are still at the conceptual stage.) Taking all this into account, I think it'll probably make sense for Cyberpunk's Online to be a free roaming experience.

Recently we have had few ostensibly online games that have treated their cooperative/competitive content as a hybrid experience. Take "Ghost Recon: Breakpoint" for instance; in that game the core game is entirely single player, from there one can choose to take their avatar and move them online in an attempt to make the whole package feel cohesive. In contrast, Red Dead Online and GTA Online have entirely separate modes that present an entirely separate online space in which players can interact without it effecting their single player game. I feel CDPR will lean towards the latter model for their implementation, for no other reason then the fact that RDO and GTA O make more money than Ubisoft's games do. Sure, Ubi have built a model that makes it easier to hook players with recurrenecy and foster a live-service environment, but Rockstar have still run circles around them in terms of units sold and microtransaction sales. (Although one could attribute that less to the strength of their model and more to the brand recognition of Rockstar as a Developer.) 

I feel that separating these two modes in such a manner would allow CD a lot more freedom in what they can achieve through the singleplayer and multiplayer. Let me explain. In any Ubisoft game that features a Live service model, I know that the main character will survive the events of the story. How do I know this? Because that avatar needs to be the vehicle for several years worth of live-service hawking from the Ubisoft monetisation team. Nomad is going to overcome his 'Breakpoint', because he has to handle those raids that are dropping next January. the Space Pirates will elude the government of 'Beyond Good and Evil 2' because they have to tackle those 'universe shifting events' that the Devs have been teasing. No, I'm not saying that the threat of death is the only thing that can establish tension in storytelling, but it establishes an aura of sameness when you know that the character will exit their adventure in the same manner that they entered it. No character shifting situations will occur and no action will have any significant consequence. It's part of the reason why I believe that Ubisoft's model of game design is stifling to creativity.

Rockstar don't have to deal with that due to the shape of their online. They can, and have, deliver a heartfelt tale with their lead; Arthur, which takes players through a genuine journey which transforms that character in a manner that is influenced by his actions. Red Dead Redemption 2's narrative is an absolute powerhouse rollercoaster and any form of tacked on Ubisoftian 'Seamless Universe' would have hurt that story's potential. CD Projekt Red strike me as the kind of storytellers who would want V's story to be a high-tier ambitious affair with real stakes that they wouldn't want to sacrifice in order to meet some monetisation quota. Maybe I'm giving them a little too much slack, but I think they've earnt it in droves with their last two games.

Then again, maybe the lore of Cyberpunk is rife for an integrated live-service angle. By that I mean specifically the immutable fact that their protagonist, V, is a mercenary. No matter what background you choose, no matter your specializations, goals, or state of wealth, your V will be a mercenary. Such a position could serve as a ripe narrative vehicle for expanded content and I have no doubt that CDPR will use this as a springboard for their planned DLC. Could the same be said for the online experience? Right now it's hard to say. We do know, thanks to CD's recent Q&A, that the game will feature contract givers who will offer the player side missions should V choose to seek them out. Could they double as daily quest merchants down the line? It sounds cynical to say, but I think it could be a possibility. Afterall, we've not had another online game from these Devs before, who's to say that they won't go the 'daily quest' route? Although it would make me physically sick if another game tried to rope me in with a goddamn daily objective incentive. (I only just broke free of Red Dead Redemption 2's one.)

As for what content we can expect from an Online mode, this is where I get a little excited. Obviously, Cyberpunk boasts a lot of high octane first person shooter action with oodles of futuristic tech abilities, however, there is also a significant amount of gameplay choice in the world. We have comprehensive stealth mechanics and even an extensive collection of future cars with some of the best conceptual designs that I've ever seen dedicated towards fictional vehicles. Does this mean we'll get a variety of activities like the Rockstar's Online games offer? In those games you can participate in death matches, team shoot 'em ups, racing minigames and even simulated gambling. (Or actual gambling in GTA Online.) Maybe CDPR will choose to go this route, however my hope is that they take a leaf out of someone else's book.

I apologize for bringing up Ghost Recon yet again, but I feel it relevant to explain my reasoning here. You see, Ghost Recon has recently embraced the online world with it's own gamemode called Ghost War, which pits players in a various stealth based competitive scenarios that highlight the best of the series' gameplay features; stealth and tactical planning. Now, if Cyberpunk can do something similar in their neon futuristic urban environments, then we'll be in for something really special. Perhaps some sort of hacking-based deathmatch with all players playing a deadly game of cat and mouse, turning the seemingly harmless locale into a death trap whilst sneaking around it themselves. That's my kind of game.

Of course, there is also the potential for some cooperative action too. Seeing as how CD Projekt Red went to the effort to design, code and voice all of these NPC factions with the unique gaits and ability to scream blue murder after their heads have been exploded, why wouldn't they want to port some of that work into their online mode. Piggybacking off of that mercenary contract idea that I mentioned earlier, perhaps CDPR could have players taking particularly difficult assignments that require the cooperation of several differently spec-ed individuals to pull off. They could create a strike-esque gameplay sequence that ends in a boss with teamwork encouraging mechanics, like Borderlands 2's raid bosses. (Okay at this point by speculation is running rampant, I might as well wrap this up.) 

Even now, half a year away from launch, we have no idea what to expect regarding huge chunks of Cyberpunk 2077, and that's honestly one of my favourite things about this game. CDPR have played this all very close to their chests and I expect that to continue until that final trailer before launch. (Maybe in that one they'll actually mention the immortality inducing chip that we already know is the story's Mcguffin.) From a fan's perspective, this can seem a little annoying, but it does allow us the freedom to have fun in taking wild guesses about how things will end up. I'll admit, I'm more confident in CDPR's ability to deliver Cyberpunk 2077 than Cyberpunk Online, but won't stop me from hoping for the best from both products. Let's all hope that CDPR don't let us, or themselves, down.

Grand Dead Online

There is never enough time.

First of all, yes, I fully intend to review Red Dead Redemption 2 at some point but seriously, it's Red Dead Redemption 2... it deserves for me to take so time. Or at least for me to do a fully exhaustive playthrough. (Plus the game is only coming up to a year old. Knowing how late I like to do things, it might be more 'on-brand' for me to wait a few years.) However, yesterday I did briefly bring up an element of that game I think is interesting; the Online component. Although I believe it is only starting to reach it's full form, as Grand Theft Auto Online did long ago, I think I've experienced enough to sum up my thoughts on the affair. But before I get there, it would make sense to start at the beginning.

The year is 2013 and September has just rolled around. Rockstar have finally released the long anticipated Grand Theft Auto V after delaying the game by six months, which definitely wasn't because they purposefully announced the game early to build on hype (>wink<).  Fans flocked to the game- (Okay, that's not entirely true.) Everyone and their mother flocked to the game, making it a undeniable success in it's launch week. Although it is difficult for me to say how much they made in that first week, (No one has boasted about it strangely.) I can confirm what you likely already know; the first day of sales amounted to 11.21 million copies sold (about $800 million) with that number climbing up to 16 million within three days (breaking the $1 billion mark.) For perspective, that means that GTA V broke six world records (as observed by Guinness) before 2014; Best Selling Action/adventure videogame in 24 Hours, Best selling video game in 24 hours, fastest entertainment property to gross $1 Billion, Highest grossing videogame in 24 hours and Highest revenue generated by an entertainment product in 24 hours. It was a bit of a success then.

Yet, somehow, impossibly, fans were still upset when they got the game. "Why?" I hear you ask, because the online portion; which, for the record, had only been announced and detailed in August of 2013, after the original release date, (But I'm sure the delay wasn't a marketing ploy >wink<) didn't release with the rest of the game. People had to wait an additional 18 days to get their hands on the exciting multiplayer mayhem that the trailer promised. (18 days!? but that's an eternity!) As you can imagine, mass riots broke out across the world as people took to the streets to voice their displeasure; resulting in several broken bones, casualties, and the overthrowing of the Kaznian government. Okay, maybe that last sentence was entirely false, but seeing the reaction of people online, you'd have thought that rioting was just around the corner.

When GTA Online did finally drop, it wasn't exactly what everyone was expecting. Although, to be fair, no one knew what they were expecting. GTA Online was essentially a sandbox environment for people to murder each other perpetually, broken up by a string of fun missions that led into nowhere. There was also a few unimaginative game modes, a horde mode which I played to actual death and a meta that revolved around grinding as much money as humanly possible in order to buy the most mundane things in the game. (I don't even want to think about how much effort I had to put in to buy my garage of classic/super cars.) Thus was born the foundations of the Grand Theft Auto experience for the next six years.

There was one huge omission that did draw considerable ire from the public, however. You see the premise of the main game followed a washed-up forty five year old seeking some excitement in his life by falling back into a world of crime (most importantly bank robbery.) The game focused around 3 huge spectacle robberies (and 1 James bond-esque robbery) and Rockstar promised that there would be even more in the online portion. People would have a greater amount of control over them and it would essentially be the highlight of every online experience to rob a bank. Reality set in, however, when the online mode launched without any heists whatsoever. Although an official reason was never given, I believe that this was a balancing concern. Rockstar had no idea how profitable their new online service would be and didn't want to upset that balance by adding a way for players to pocket truckloads of money off-the-bat.

Fan's had to wait somewhere close to a year before heists finally landed, and by that point Rockstar had already cemented their formula for the future. For those who are unfamiliar (or who ignored my last blog) it works thus; every piece of developed expansion for the online mode comes attached with a price tag, like normal DLC. However, this price tag is made of in game dollars that can be earnt through game play. The price itself is so high, however, that unless you are as much of a cheapskate as I am, you'll likely just pay for the cash injections that they offer for a small real-world fee. In the end, heists were such a huge time commitment, and took so many people working in conjunction in order to setup, that they didn't butt into that carefully balanced ecostructure at all.

Yesterday I mentioned how much I enjoyed that model, and I stand by my words. I've always enjoyed the concept of "If you work hard, you'll get there in the end." maybe because I've experienced the exact opposite in real life so I find the concept quaint. That being said, I do understand that this system, and it's success, is the main reason why GTA never saw any substantial DLC or 'mix up' like Red Dead Redemption had with 'Undead Nightmare'. The biggest new asset that I've seen that team cook up in the past 6 years is that giant casino that they plopped in the middle of Los Santos. Which, by the way, actually breaks the lore of the game. (Allow me to get nerdy.)

You see, GTA Online officially takes place before the events of the main game, which  is indicated when Lester mentions knowing an operative but immediately scraps the idea by saying that they're too 'unpredictable'. Therefore, the Los Santos skyline shouldn't hold any significant changes to the one from the main game, however, here we are with a brand new Casino. Are you telling me that the entire building disappeared one night, the same way it appeared? What is this, a ghost casino?

Anyway, GTA Online ended up making all the money in the world and grossing something stupid like $6 billion, beating out Endgame and single handedly making gaming the most profitable entertainment medium in the world. It is also the reason why every soulless game's company out there is desperate to make their own hit 'live-service' despite the fact that they all lack the recognition, scope, and talent of Rockstar. (Looking at you; EA, Bethesda and Ubisoft.)

Anticipation swelled when Red Dead Redemption 2 was announced, as people guessed what that game would do to push forward the formula. Rockstar confused everyone, however, by refusing to release even so much as a trailer hinting at such. (despite promising one.) Then they turned around to their parent company, Take-Two, and assured them that Red Dead Online (the name that Rockstar filed their trademark under) wouldn't be a competitor to GTA Online. So what does that mean? Would Red Dead Online not be a live-service? Of course it would be, it would just be seeking a different demographic.

Personally, I see Red Dead Online as GTA Online 2.0. Much of the core concept itself is unchanged, there is a free-roam portion, a mission mode and a whole bunch of online competitive modes (However this game's competitive modes are almost all uniquely imaginative.) Plus, a lot of the game is built around the grind for money, the only significant difference I can see is that the price points have altered. Instead of saving up for millions in order to buy that new supercar, you end up saving just as long for that $600 horse. The biggest overhaul has been the inclusion of a brand new currency in gold.

I struggle to call this a 'premium currency'. As although you can, and are likely expected to, buy this outright; you can still earn this money in game and consistently. This separates this from other premium currencies like those found in Mobile games (that limit how much you can earn to make buying anything fun damn near prohibitive.) and other AAA games. (Like how Fallout 76 drip feeds Atoms through daily activities in order to hook concurrency.) Plus, a lot of the time, gold can be used as a substitute for in-game money, achieving... I'm not sure what, to be honest. (Likely just an incentive to spend real money on gold, honestly.)

The problem comes from the fact that there are some incredibly fun elements of the game that are locked behind gold and cannot be purchased with in-game money. This ranges from particularly cool pieces of equipment to entire portions of the gameplay loop that were added in the 'specialisations' update. Again, you can feasibly make up this Gold by just grinding away at the game, but not everyone is unemployed and talentless, some people out there have lives. I'm not blind to how manipulative this all is, but similarly, I'm not blind to how Rockstar will support this game mode substantially for years to come. It feels like such a betrayal to say that I am fine with this model, but I truly hope you can see my reasoning when I admit that I am. (Although that does not extended to GTA's Casinos. Literally, screw the GTA O team for that.)

One aspect of this game that has certainly improved over GTA Online is the way that they handle progression. Just like in every other live service, you'll find yourself being drip fed things you can buy,  like clothing and weapons, as you level up. Standard procedure. But when Rockstar added the 'specialisation' update, an interesting evolution was made to that system. Instead of just earning more clothing, or endless new pistols (GTA Online), you could unlock specialized pieces of gear or skills that could be used in the main game. For example, if you level up your bounty hunter skills, you'll eventually unlock a bolas, which can knock someone off their horse from a distance and tie them up. Keep working your way through to the upper levels and you'll even learn how to duck on your horse, dodging shots from players or NPCs and becoming an invaluable tool for multiplayer matches. It's important to note that neither of these two mechanics were present in the main game and both were realized exclusively for the online.

The free roam has been expanded upon too, learning from the mistakes of GTA Online. In that game, people were upset that missions took place in their own instanced space, meaning that players couldn't run into each other or interfere unless they grouped up in the mission lobby. Red Dead Online fixes this by not just having mission occur in the open world, but actively encouraging near by players to join in. (Usually aggressively.) This can make a standard wagon delivery mission turn into a deadly chase scene, which I may be alone in liking but I enjoy it nonetheless. Maybe I'm just a sucker for dynamic game play scenarios.

The controls and gameplay are fantastic for it's mastery of all things simple, but that is a topic that I think is best left for my review of the main game. (Whenever that will be.) and Rockstar even took the effort to make movement a lot easier, by allowing you to put your horse on 'auto mode'. Yup, if you go into cinematic mode whilst you have a destination on your map, your horse will take you there. Now, if only Rockstar could make sure that doing this didn't net you with the customary "You will be logged out in 13 minutes for inactivity" threat, then I could really enjoy myself by looking at the scenery.

Red Dead Online is a game that is hell bent on taking all of your free time, and that is a little bit a problem considering every modern video game wants the exact same thing. However, with the sheen of quality over every aspect, I don't feel as dirty donating my considerable free time to the West as much as do whenever I play Fallout 76 or... well, mostly just Fallout 76. I haven't even gone into the real deep end yet; like, did you know that RDO has a Battle pass? But I am enjoying what I have played on a surface level so far. I really do hope, however, that whatever success Red Dead Online garners does not end up putting a dampener on the chances for real Red Dead DLC, as I think the single player is ripe for some extended content.  Now, if you don't mind, I have to collect some bounties.