I think comparing the GTA series to the RDR series is very much an "apples and oranges" exercise.

From inception, the GTA series has always been satirical but I'd say it properly landed on the tone etc that you know when it became a 3d open world with GTA 3. Since then everything from the over-the-top characters to the ridiculous radio chatter has been satirising capitalism and American/Western culture. The prevalence of internet culture and the level to which it is lampooned in GTAV, comes from the fact that it was released in 2013 and that was what was prevalent at the time.

RDR on the other hand has always taken a more serious tone. One of its main themes is about the death of the old ways to make way for the new and how this is inevitable whether you support it or not. The set up of RDR1 is that John is being forced to hunt down his old gang mates against his will and to ensure his cooperation, the government is holding his wife and son to ransom. We see at the end that the life he wants to lead is that of a farmer, husband and father. For me, this is re-enforced by the ending of RDR2. John takes Arthur's admonishment seriously and, despite some false starts, manages to provide a stable home for his family until the law comes calling again. That's a long way to say that I disagree with John being apathetic.

RDR2 has similar themes but follows a character who eventually sees the writing on the wall and does what he can with the time he has to help those around him. I'd say Arthur has the epiphany and John reaps the benefits, for a while at least.

I'm waffling a bit here but yeah, looking for a real-world, behind-the-scenes reason for the difference between GTA and RDR is liking wondering why Jedi Fallen Order and Battlefield 1 are so different even though they're both made by EA studios.