Current Events > Reddit is currently freaking out because the RDR Switch Port is $50

(+) Yeah! (+)

Nobody is really clear why it matters other than they feel entitled to a cheaper price I guess, but they're sure angry

Then wait until the price drops, not that hard

Reddit is always freaking out

Damn_Underscore posted...

Then wait until the price drops, not that hard

Right? It's like they think just because it's an old game no effort or expense goes into the rerelease.

Granted, that's assuming it works, unlike other Rockstar ports....

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

Nah most gamers don't care because it isn't an unreasonable price

the game is missing content as well

ppla re expected to pay more for less

It's a demake with no enhancements.

No idea why a 13 year old game necessitates a $50 price tag, but it's not worth getting worked up over. You can probably find it in a bargain bin of 360 games somewhere for a few bucks

Starks posted...

It's a demake with no enhancements.

It's a port going to less powerful tech.

Gwynevere posted...

No idea why a 13 year old game necessitates a $50 price tag, but it's not worth getting worked up over. You can probably find it in a bargain bin of 360 games somewhere for a few bucks

Essentially, charging for the original game, plus the cost of development to port it to new tech, plus the cost of licensing and production.

Granted this is assuming it runs well.

RuneterranSnap posted...

It's a port going to less powerful tech.

the switch is more powerful than the 360

Because it's a stupid price point for nothing more than a port.

AceMos posted...

the switch is more powerful than the 360

lol

Kaldrenthebold posted...

Because it's a stupid price point for nothing more than a port.

Not really, as has been clarified

RuneterranSnap posted...

lol

its a fact that the switch is more powerful than the PS3 and 360

When we live in a world where writing out a few sentences while taking your morning shit is "freaking out" I don't take any "outrage" I read on the internet as true outrage.

RuneterranSnap posted...

lol

Not really, as has been clarified

Yeah your clarification is nonsense. Metroid Prime Remastered was given brand new textures, lighting effects and control schemes and launched at $40 for a much older game. So, no, it's still shitty for $50 for just a port and nothing more.

Kaldrenthebold posted...

Yeah your clarification is nonsense. Metroid Prime Remastered was given brand new textures, lighting effects and control schemes and launched at $40 for a much older game. So, no, it's still shitty for $50 for just a port and nothing more.

Another studio releasing a game for less than they could justify doesn't mean others need to do it.

Most people believe it's R* having their head up their ass

RuneterranSnap posted...

Another studio releasing a game for less than they could justify doesn't mean others need to do it.

No, it is just Rockstar price gouging. Nothing more nothing less. You are free to not care, as I do, but it is pretty fucking stupid to defend this kind of price point when literally nothing else has been done to the port. A port job is not worth nigh full price, doesn't matter who does it. I can go get the PS3 version for about $5 at any store dealing with ancient games.

Joyrock logic in here

AceMos posted...

its a fact that the switch is more powerful than the PS3 and 360

No its not

Why are you acting so smug about thinking a port of a 13 year old game coming to Switch for $50 isnt a problem? People act so damn high and mighty over the most banal of things. This is a pretty stupid move on Rockstars end but this isnt surprising based on the GTADE disaster. They definitely have the resources to do more than this basic port but whatever.

Kaldrenthebold posted...

No, it is just Rockstar price gouging.

lol k, love seeing entitled people at work

SimulationSwarm posted...

Joyrock logic in here

So accurate logic

bioshockjack posted...

Why are you acting so smug about thinking a port of a 13 year old game coming to Switch for $50 isnt a problem?

Because it isn't.

Kaldrenthebold posted...

No, it is just Rockstar price gouging. Nothing more nothing less. You are free to not care, as I do, but it is pretty fucking stupid to defend this kind of price point when literally nothing else has been done to the port. A port job is not worth nigh full price, doesn't matter who does it. I can go get the PS3 version for about $5 at any store dealing with ancient games.

"An item is only worth what people are willing to pay for it."

If it doesn't sell at $50, then you are correct. If it sells thousands and thousands of copies the first few weeks, than you are not.

WalkingLobsters posted...

No its not

the switch is stronger than the wii u and the wii u was stronger than the 360

RuneterranSnap posted...

Essentially, charging for the original game, plus the cost of development to port it to new tech, plus the cost of licensing and production.

Granted this is assuming it runs well.

Obviously there's costs that go into porting it, but it seems pointless to justify the price tag either way based on these factors without actually being able to put a dollar sign to them. The only thing really important to the discussion from a consumer's perspective is if they deem the price tag worth it, and the reaction seems negative thus far. Guess we'll see how that translates to people actually buying it though

Dog dont you have insane leftist views on capitalism, yet here you are defending capitalism?

Who is the game even for? Wasteful spend gamers on the go that refuse to buy a steam deck?

SimulationSwarm posted...

Dog dont you have insane leftist views on capitalism, yet here you are defending capitalism?

I don't mind companies charging what their product is worth. I wouldn't even mind if it was overcharging for this. I have extreme views regarding how people are victimized under capitalism, that isn't this.

The awesome thing about owning a Switch is that if you bought yours before they released the V2 model you d--nevermind.

Gwynevere posted...

Obviously there's costs that go into porting it, but it seems pointless to justify the price tag either way based on these factors without actually being able to put a dollar sign to them. The only thing really important to the discussion from a consumer's perspective is if they deem the price tag worth it, and the reaction seems negative thus far. Guess we'll see how that translates to people actually buying it though

Ding ding ding. Making shit up as "costs" ain't it. The game is already created, it is literally just turning off online and making it run on alternate hardware.

bigblu89 posted...

"An item is only worth what people are willing to pay for it."

If it doesn't sell at $50, then you are correct. If it sells thousands and thousands of copies the first few weeks, than you are not.

Yep. I was interested cause I love RDR1, but after the price point and lack of...anything being done to it, I am no longer. And if this goes down as another "GTA Trilogy is a piece of shit rush job from one of the world's wealthiest companies" then I will be pleased.

RuneterranSnap posted...

Right? It's like they think just because it's an old game no effort or expense goes into the rerelease.

Granted, that's assuming it works, unlike other Rockstar ports....

Its literally a straight port, not a remaster, and they couldnt be arsed to even port it to all platforms. Its one of the most half-assed and cheapest efforts in history, particularly for a company Rockstars size. Asking $50 for that is ludicrous, especially after the GTA remaster collection was such an unmitigated dumpster fire.

That is too much for a port of an old game, who does Rockstar think they are... Nintendo?

But people will buy it at that price because of brand recognition and hype.

If all of the major consoles were in the same tier of power, we wouldn't have these situations.

Nintendo struggling with third parties for AAA games from last generation should not be happening. Not being able to run current AAA games without being gutted should not be happening.

Kaldrenthebold posted...

Ding ding ding. Making s*** up as "costs" ain't it. The game is already created, it is literally just turning off online and making it run on alternate hardware.

That "making it run on alternate hardware" iw a pretty big and involved deal though.

RuneterranSnap posted...

That "making it run on alternate hardware" iw a pretty big and involved deal though.

As a software developer, I can confidently tell you it isnt. Especially for a company Rockstars size.

RuneterranSnap posted...

That "making it run on alternate hardware" iw a pretty big and involved deal though.

And yet much smaller companies provide much greater value for much less price for their port jobs. This is simply Rockstar thinking, due to their success, that they can get away with this. Quite similarly to the GTA Trilogy, which they even admitted was horrendously received. So, what do they do?

Make an even LAZIER attempt at another game. Not even porting it to PC. Meanwhile, Mafia 1 gets a full on remake looking gorgeous, and Rockstar can't even be assed to do that. Just us PC scaling uprezzing of the mobile ports.

They make good games, but their treatment of their legacy media is atrocious.

EDIT: Also I'm a senior software engineer about to become software engineer manager, that has dealt with updating out of date sites and applications for modern technology. This isn't 2005 anymore.

Starks posted...

If all of the major consoles were in the same tier of power, we wouldn't have these situations.

Nintendo struggling with third parties for AAA games from last generation should not be happening. Not being able to run current AAA games without being gutted should not be happening.

Yeah, but Nintendo knows it can get away with buying insanely cheap silicon and their cult like fanbase will eat up everything they put out for it. Its already rumored that Switch 2 or whatever it ends up being called has the same power as a pS4, so theyll remain a generation behind.

Initially I was wondering what the fuss was. For every Metroid Prime HD there's been like three Etrian Odyssey HD Collections y'know, port pricing is inconsistent.

Here's where I get skeptical:

The digital version is releasing in two weeks, and the physical version is launching in October. This is something that happened with the GTA Trilogy Definitive Edition back in 2021.

The development studio, Double Eleven Studios, are basically a porthouse whose ports include the Lego Harry Potter games to later console generations and Crackdown 3 to Windows. Their ports are generally considered to be middle-of-the-road at best.

This comes on the tail-end of the Grand Theft Auto Trilogy: Definitive Edition, which was cobbled together by a studio who created dogshit ports of the three PS2-era games for mobile phones. That collection was priced at a premium, and earlier releases which were more competent ports were subsequently delisted - leaving the subpar "Definitive Edition" as the only legal way to obtain and enjoy these games on modern platforms.

Red Dead Redemption is apparently hard as fuck to port, because there's something about the source code. I could be wrong here, but it's taken them this long to release a single, barebones port with the same graphics - allegedly due to woes regarding the source code.

I'm not concerned about the price, because eventually I'm gonna get some of these Etrian Oddysey games that they sell at a premium. If it's a good port, I'll consider getting it - shit, MK11 isn't a great port and I still bought it on Switch because it was $14.

What I'm concerned about is 2K/Rockstar's recent mishaps, and how closely this remaster seems to hem to the release cycle of their last disaster. The GTA trilogy collection was revealed maybe a month or two before it released, digital only with a physical release later on (suggesting the software isn't finished yet, with a more complete version on-disc later on) - RDR is set to launch one week from now. The visual woes are different, with the Trilogy having an overblown "remaster" and RDR launching with unimproved 7th gen graphics, but the concern for visual quality still exists. The studio porting these games are known for trashy, unappealing ports. There are very real warning signs here.

I want the port to be good. I want something fun to play on my Switch. My concern isn't the price - my concern is that this remaster is hemming way too close to the GTA trilogy remaster, right down to a very narrow launch window and delayed physical release of the remaster.

If it's all the cart, I'll think about it. if it's "internet connection and MicroSD card required", then fuck off.

When the publisher is too cheap to put the whole game on the cart, I'll be too cheap to pay the whole launch price. That's just fair.

PraetorXyn posted...

Yeah, but Nintendo knows it can get away with buying insanely cheap silicon and their cult like fanbase will eat up everything they put out for it. Its already rumored that Switch 2 or whatever it ends up being called has the same power as a pS4, so theyll remain a generation behind.

The problem is more that they'll be more than a generation behind in handhelds. Handhelds that will soon allow attaching an EGPU.

I honestly got jazzed up for a retooled Red Dead 1 with a more developed online.

I'd still kill for Undead Nightmare lobbies outside of the shitty horde mode.

I have no leg in this race, but $50 is a bit steep for a 13 year old game. Not worth getting upset over though, it'll be on sale soon enough.

Without the multiplayer it should be $29 for a no frills port that will probably have to be cut back in some areas to get it running on Switch.

Imagine unironically defending this.
Could never be me.

You all know what this is right? It's the same as the $70 standard price point publishers forced. With this Strauss is saying "old games don't ever lose value". If it succeeds and sells like crazy then more publishers will jump on the bandwagon and force original pricing for ancient games. Nintendo has done it for awhile but everyone was just like "That's Nintendo..." well now it's Take-Two.

Vyrulisse posted...

Imagine unironically defending this.
Could never be me.

Imagine being so entitled you think you get to call them out for this

Starks posted...

If all of the major consoles were in the same tier of power, we wouldn't have these situations.

Nintendo struggling with third parties for AAA games from last generation should not be happening. Not being able to run current AAA games without being gutted should not be happening.

I don't want three identical consoles with all the same games.

I like variety and choice. Don't blame Nintendo, blame the free market and blame consumers for buying what is being sold.

So tired of this ridiculous notion that you are entitled to three identical consoles so you can do what? - not play identical ports on other consoles? I don't get it.