I was thinking about getting it. But it seems like an expensive investment with all the different editions. So if im planning on playing strictly single player, which edition should I get?

And how is the game? Is it a fun free roaming open world sandbox?

It's an excellent game for the singleplayer portion, one of the most immersive ever made, with a ton of attention paid to every detail of the world.

I recommend using a controller to play it.

I don't remember what the differences between the editions are, but IIRC, it's nothing major you are losing out on if you go for the standard edition only.

I've also played RDR2. The singleplayer portion is well-written and fun to play through. The world is, in Rockstar tradition, saturated with detail and very much alive.

I second Ancient-Red-Dragon's recommendation for a controller.

As much as I want too, not yet.

Still waiting for a decent discount, which given Rockstar's history of late - namely, after the insane success GTA5 PC and now RDR2 PC in terms of sales & recognition - yeah, it could be a while.

EDIT:
Would love to one day see RDR1 come to the PC.

Fantastic game and well worth the money. I also recommend using a mouse and keyboard with it. The controls are very well done.

Yea, but OP is asking about the Ultimate Edition?

I unexpectedly upgraded my hardware, so I also just bought Cyberpunk, Red Dead Redemption 2, and Sekiro. I have only played Cyberpunk so far, so I haven't even downloaded the other game yet. However, I just bought the base version because... well, €40 was the limit of what I was willing to pay...

I played on PS4... so take that into account when reading...

RDR2 never released any story dlc that I know of, so I think you are safe purchasing the standard edition (all dlc is MP related). But on PC don't solely take my word for it. There may be an SP weapon or something opened through dlc...?

I am a big fan of Western books, movies, and games... and Red Dead Redemption is one of my favorite games (and soundtracks) of all time...

... but...

*** RANT AHEAD ***

... I absolutely hated RDR2. Is it beautiful? Yes, but nowhere near as iconic as RDR1. Is there a good size of content? Yes, but it doesn't feel as diverse as RDR1. And...

... the character control is slow, clunky, and imprecise (markedly worse than RDR1), the micro-management is a chore (not difficult, yes boring), the Wanted system is borderline broken, and unless you embrace the "black hat" life, you will probably have very little money and few available tasks across the map (the game is clearly weighted toward being bad).

Storywise, many claim the game earth-shattering, but I was bored. The characters are fine -- even "good" -- but the plot is slow, plodding, and lacks narrative momentum.

Even the music is only a shadow of RDR1.

I paid $60 dollars in day 1 of release and gave up 3/4 of the way through the game... to never picked it up again. Why? I just didn't care to play it anymore. I didn't care to see where the characters ended up. And again, Westerns are alongside WWII games as my favorite genre. So...

... is RDR2 a terrible game? No, there's too much time and care in certain aspects to say it's terrible. IMO it's a mundane, mediocre game with a stunning landscape. But for me, it felt like a waste of money. Since RDR2 I've gone back and played RDR1 twice... and IMHO that is a much superior game.

I free-roamed most of the RDR2 map and didn't find it that engaging either -- where I -- to this day -- will load up RDR1 just to ride the hills and deserts.

You may love RDR2 (I've read many who do)... but I hated the experience... and I expected it to be exactly what I was looking for (it was one of my most anticipated games).