My expectation is that it will be very good, but will have no single player DLC whatsoever in lieu of GTAO2 or whatever they call it. And no, I've never forgiven them for doing that with V. At least this time I won't be expecting it.

[–] dangblingus@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

What if it doesn't need DLC? When the concept of DLC first came out, everyone complained that devs were just releasing unfinished games and that you were obligated to buy DLC to enjoy a full experience. Now people only buy games because they're expecting DLC?

[–] samus12345@lemmy.world 6 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Because Rockstar did some good DLC for GTA IV and Red Dead Redemption. I agree that DLC isn't a good thing if it's carved out of the base game, but Rockstar had a good track record of making good DLC for already feature-complete games.

[–] dangblingus@lemmy.world 0 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Unnecessarily cynical. The same series? Are Vice City, SA, and 4 considered bad games?

[–] Goblin_Mode@ttrpg.network 1 points 11 months ago

Did you even read my initial comment?

I explicitly said that I have never been let down by a GTA campaign. What I was saying was that RDR2 is a different series that plays by different rules. For that reason I don't feel like it's necessarily fair to use RDR2 as an example of how they will treat GTA with the respect the series deserves.