• RecluseRamble@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      4 hours ago

      Use Noscript. It’s quite surprising how many articles can actually be read without allowing any Javascript and cookie forms won’t show up (it often is annoying though, so I cannot seriously recommend this).

  • Blackmist@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    6 hours ago

    Silent Hill 2 does cost as much as a brand new game. Where were the complaints about that?

  • ThrowawayOnLemmy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    59
    ·
    1 day ago

    Well then I’ll be patient and pick it up on a deep discount. No skin off my back. I already went 14 years without playing it.

  • accideath@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    24
    ·
    21 hours ago

    On the one hand, this is bullshit. A 14 y/o game shouldn’t cost more than its successor. On the other hand, I remember reading, the reason for RDR having never been released for pc (until now) was that the version of the RAGE engine they used was based on the one from GTA IV but severely modified with features that were originally meant for the version of the engine that would ultimately power GTA V. Those modifications apparently weren’t documented particularly well, making it unprofitably difficult to port to PC at the time. So my guess is, that the steep price isn’t just corporate greed but to some extent actually for a lot of work making sense of a 14 year old frankenstein monster of an engine and getting it to work well on modern architectures.

    • a1studmuffin@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      17 hours ago

      If they only released RDR on PS3, this explanation might make sense as the engine would be heavily optimised for PS3. But they also released on Xbox 360, which is the closest console platform to Windows in terms of architecture. It wouldn’t have been that expensive to port.

      • accideath@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        10 hours ago

        To windows, sure. But the 360 and PS3 have PowerPC processors while PCs and modern consoles have a very different architecture (x86). And porting to that is more effort.

      • all-knight-party@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        17 hours ago

        I think there must be a degree of truth to the spaghetti code backstory, otherwise Rockstar would’ve just ported it already and raked in the cash

        • a1studmuffin@aussie.zone
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          13 hours ago

          The one thing that could cause serious porting pain would be the need to support high/variable frame rates. That could require a whole bunch of code to be refactored.

    • DrSteveBrule@mander.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      19 hours ago

      You’re right in the first half. I don’t see why anyone should pay more for inefficient work. I don’t want to go to the mechanic who drags his feet and bills me for an extra 2 hours of work that wasn’t necessary.

      • accideath@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        9 hours ago

        Oh absolutely. Anyone who wants it should wait for a sale at the very least. You‘ve waited 14 years, you can wait a few more months.

  • TommySoda@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    24 hours ago

    As I did with every other Rockstar game I have ever paid for, I’ll get it on sale. I’ve never really been a hardcore fan anyway. And I have such a backlog of games that by the time I’d get around to playing it, it will probably be on sale.

  • supersquirrel@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    1 day ago

    meh I could never get past the fact that the red dead games just have shit gunplay in my opinion, it is kind of shocking how little rockstar seems to care about putting fun rewarding gunplay into their games.

    • li10@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      24 hours ago

      I think the gunplay is fun, it just goes for more of a “realism” approach.

      Not saying it’s great, but it’s enjoyable and a good component in the context of how the entire game plays imo.

      It’s not supposed to be snappy, it’s made to be kinda slow and almost purposely clunky. For me that’s always made the gun fights quite tense and punishing in a good way.

      • supersquirrel@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        23 hours ago

        It isn’t that the gunplay is slow and clunky, I like all kinds of shooters from operation harsh doorstep to xonotic to cod mobile to easy red 2… I like shooters pretty much however they come, but I would barely quantify red dead as a shooter.

        To say the gunplay is weak, shallow and poorly integrated with level design is an understatement and I think is a shame because otherwise red dead 1 and 2 are phenomenal games.

        • vxx@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          8 hours ago

          Read dead’s gunplay is actually gun play from 90’s arcade shooters, without the fun of holding a gun and stepping on a paddle to get into cover.

        • wizardbeard@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          22 hours ago

          I think I get what you mean. It simply doesn’t control well outside of deadeye mode where you stop time and effectively pick your shots out in first person with a laser pointer.

          It’s classic GTA lackluster gunplay. Point your character in the general direction of the enemy, then spam the fire button until the bad guy falls down.

  • Linux is for pussies@dormi.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    23 hours ago

    They were playing the long game by making Red Dead Redemption 2 so shit that everyone would come back to the first one at a raised cost.