The move to an annual upgrade is probably not necessarily a good thing. The racing games have the advantage that the racing teams do have a similar cycle. I can see the benefits of a major upgrade once a generation and lots of interim DLC.

I loved Redemption (never played revolver). IMO some games should be left alone. What would be better would be say a series of RDR-style games but in different settings eg Roman times, Aztec etc.

TBH, RDR was a pretty self-contained story (those who've seen the ending will know what I mean). if they want to make further 'western' games that's fine with me but I'm slightly worried by the 'franchise' thing. Ubisoft have pretty much run Assassin's Creed into the ground that way, even though they've used different eras for different games.

Provided the release cycle is every few years, I don't see a problem. It gives them time to evolve the plot and the technology, and by then many fans will be aching for it and there will be a whole new audience just reaching the right age.

I think they might be looking for a shorter cycle than that. Civilisation has a good few years between new versions. Though they might have expansion packs after launch. Civ 5 has had two expansions already.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

For me, red dead was more San Andreas. The more San Andreas I get, the happier I am.