v1.00 advantages?

[Pistol Bobcat]

I just deleted and reinstalled 1.00 on ps4.

 

Because f*ck rockstar, that's Why! It's fine for griefing to ensue online so long as everyone is buying gold bars. 

 

BUT GOD FORBID WE HAPPILY EXPLORE NEW AUSTIN WITH ARTHUR, BECAUSE THAT TOTALLY MESSES WITH THEIR BUSINESS, RIIIIGHT?

[7th Ward Charizard]

does the X version ask for a 4K update at install or is it good to go straight from the disc? want to know before I upgrade in a couple weeks. reaaaally trying to not get the latest update. 

[daltontigerboy]

The following post is regarding the alledged graphical downgrades to RDR2, relative to the unpatched 1.00 version of the game, and the 1.02 launch version of the game.

 

This has nothing to do with downgrades/fixes in regards to mechanics, glitches, exploits, clothing differences, or anything else. It is strictly regarding the subject of graphical downgrades. 

 

Hello. 

 

I havent posted on this forum in nearly 4 years. 

I am, however, a massive fan of GTA, RDR, and RockstarGames as a whole. 

 

Red Dead Redemption 2 is now my favorite game of all time - finally surpassing GTA IV - and exceeding my sky high expectations I had built up during the grueling 2 year wait from announcement to release. 

 

Naturally, as the avid fan that I am, I have become obsessed with the game since launch. In the last month, I have been absolutely enamored in this world as I work my way towards 100% completion. 

 

I’ve always been someone who loathes the concept of game developers downgrading their games (especially post-launch), and in the case of Rockstar, I’m doubly paranoid about the idea. 

 

As someone who recently converted their gaming library to digital, and who also enjoys playing Online, it’s now a little difficult for me to retain access to the original unpatched versions of games. 

 

Therefore, the downgrade-fearing side of me was never really activated, as my first experience with Red Dead Redemption 2 on October 26th, 2018 was based on patch 1.02, a point at which the game had already suffered the graphical cutbacks. (Of which I was unaware of at that time)

 

It was only recently (earlier this month to be exact), that I had become curious about these alledged downgrades, and wanted to see what 1.00 had to offer; but before doing that I needed to see if the game had been downgraded any since 1.02.

 

After spending hours (and I mean hours) of my time watching old recorded footage I had of 1.02, and comparing it to 1.05 in direct frame-by-frame scenes, I came to the conclusion that no downgrade had taken place between these versions.  I went back and played missions using the same time of day & weather, and switched back and forth between 1.02 footage and 1.05 gameplay in several scenes/locations to do this.

 

The only visual difference - noticeable to me anyway - between 1.02 and 1.05 is the lanterns in front of Worth’s general store are turned off at night (this change was introduced in patch 1.03).

 

_______________

 

I had stumbled across this post sometime earlier this month, displaying a CLEAR downgrade in ambient occlusion from the unpatched 1.00 version. 

This obviously bothered me - but not too much - since knowing that the visuals I saw on day one (1.02) matched the current visuals of the game at the time (1.05) after my lengthy personal investigation. 

 

The funny thing about that post, and the thread its within for that matter, is that these downgrades already took place before patch 1.03, yet it was only once 1.03 released that people began to notice. 

 

Once again, I went back and watched 1.02 footage of my own (and YouTube) to confirm this. The ambient occlusion had already been downgraded on 1.02. It’s obvious as soon as you step foot in a general store (ambient occlusion missing on all of the intricate products on the shelf).  Like I said earlier, the only major visual change between 1.02 and 1.03 is the Worth’s General Store lights were turned off. 

 

However, I was now morbidly curious about the extent of the downgrade from 1.00, so I went and bought a disc copy of RDR2. 

 

I needed to see what all I was missing out on in terms of graphics. Was 1.02 & onwards really that downgraded from the pure, untouched magic of 1.00?

 

Well, after a few days playing unpatched, the answer quickly became clear. 

 

Outside of the obvious downgrade to Ambient Occlusion, and a very slight reduction in sharpness on PS4 Pro, there is no difference in graphics between unpatched and the patched versions. 

 

I performed the same techniques I used previously to compare 1.00 to my footage/screenshots of patched versions. 

 

Here are the only visual differences I noticed after playing 1.00 for a few days, and comparing it to the patched versions (which are all the same visually). 

 

TL;DR

 

RDR2 1.00 PS4 Pro

• Ambient Occlusion much better noticeable mainly on NPCs, the Saint Denis tramway, and small items laying on a table

• Resolution appears very slightly sharper, but it’s only really noticeable on grass/foliage textures

• Lanterns in front of Worth’s general store are lit at night

• Frame-rate performance is worse, especially in towns it’s super noticeable

• Map is extremely jerky/glitchy; icons lag behind as you try to scroll the map

 

Thats really it. I was expecting more and I’m honestly happy it’s not as serious as I worried it would be. 

 

Other than the points I described above - in terms of purely GRAPHICAL differences between 1.00 and patched versions - the graphics are identical. Textures, lighting, effects, character models, etc, all appear identical. 

 

Those who are claim they are seeing downgrades every time a new patch comes out are suffering from a placebo.

Edited February 27, 2019 by daltontigerboy

[Sonny_Black]

1 hour ago, daltontigerboy said:

The following post is regarding the alledged graphical downgrades to RDR2, relative to the unpatched 1.00 version of the game, and the 1.02 launch version of the game.

 

This has nothing to do with downgrades/fixes in regards to mechanics, glitches, exploits, clothing differences, or anything else. It is strictly regarding the subject of graphical downgrades. 

 

Hello. 

 

I havent posted on this forum in nearly 4 years. 

I am, however, a massive fan of GTA, RDR, and RockstarGames as a whole. 

 

Red Dead Redemption 2 is now my favorite game of all time - finally surpassing GTA IV - and exceeding my sky high expectations I had built up during the grueling 2 year wait from announcement to release. 

 

Naturally, as the avid fan that I am, I have become obsessed with the game since launch. In the last month, I have been absolutely enamored in this world as I work my way towards 100% completion. 

 

I’ve always been someone who loathes the concept of game developers downgrading their games (especially post-launch), and in the case of Rockstar, I’m doubly paranoid about the idea. 

 

As someone who recently converted their gaming library to digital, and who also enjoys playing Online, it’s now a little difficult for me to retain access to the original unpatched versions of games. 

 

Therefore, the downgrade-fearing side of me was never really activated, as my first experience with Red Dead Redemption 2 on October 26th, 2018 was based on patch 1.02, a point at which the game had already suffered the graphical cutbacks. (Of which I was unaware of at that time)

 

It was only recently (earlier this month to be exact), that I had become curious about these alledged downgrades, and wanted to see what 1.00 had to offer; but before doing that I needed to see if the game had been downgraded any since 1.02.

 

After spending hours (and I mean hours) of my time watching old recorded footage I had of 1.02, and comparing it to 1.05 in direct frame-by-frame scenes, I came to the conclusion that no downgrade had taken place between these versions.  I went back and played missions using the same time of day & weather, and switched back and forth between 1.02 footage and 1.05 gameplay in several scenes/locations to do this.

 

The only visual difference - noticeable to me anyway - between 1.02 and 1.05 is the lanterns in front of Worth’s general store are turned off at night (this change was introduced in patch 1.03).

 

_______________

 

I had stumbled across this post sometime earlier this month, displaying a CLEAR downgrade in ambient occlusion from the unpatched 1.00 version. 

This obviously bothered me - but not too much - since knowing that the visuals I saw on day one (1.02) matched the current visuals of the game at the time (1.05) after my lengthy personal investigation. 

 

The funny thing about that post, and the thread its within for that matter, is that these downgrades already took place before patch 1.03, yet it was only once 1.03 released that people began to notice. 

 

Once again, I went back and watched 1.02 footage of my own (and YouTube) to confirm this. The ambient occlusion had already been downgraded on 1.02. It’s obvious as soon as you step foot in a general store (ambient occlusion missing on all of the intricate products on the shelf).  Like I said earlier, the only major visual change between 1.02 and 1.03 is the Worth’s General Store lights were turned off. 

 

However, I was now morbidly curious about the extent of the downgrade from 1.00, so I went and bought a disc copy of RDR2. 

 

I needed to see what all I was missing out on in terms of graphics. Was 1.02 & onwards really that downgraded from the pure, untouched magic of 1.00?

 

Well, after a few days playing unpatched, the answer quickly became clear. 

 

Outside of the obvious downgrade to Ambient Occlusion, and a very slight reduction in sharpness on PS4 Pro, there is no difference in graphics between unpatched and the patched versions. 

 

I performed the same techniques I used previously to compare 1.00 to my footage/screenshots of patched versions. 

 

Here are the only visual differences I noticed after playing 1.00 for a few days, and comparing it to the patched versions (which are all the same visually). 

 

TL;DR

 

RDR2 1.00 PS4 Pro

• Ambient Occlusion much better noticeable mainly on NPCs, the Saint Denis tramway, and small items laying on a table

• Resolution appears very slightly sharper, but it’s only really noticeable on grass/foliage textures

• Lanterns in front of Worth’s general store are lit at night

• Frame-rate performance is worse, especially in towns it’s super noticeable

• Map is extremely jerky/glitchy; icons lag behind as you try to scroll the map

 

Thats really it. I was expecting more and I’m honestly happy it’s not as serious as I worried it would be. 

 

Other than the points I described above - in terms of purely GRAPHICAL differences between 1.00 and patched versions - the graphics are identical. Textures, lighting, effects, character models, etc, all appear identical. 

 

Those who are claim they are seeing downgrades every time a new patch comes out are suffering from a placebo.

Any screenshots comparison about the ambient occlusion ?

[daltontigerboy]

8 minutes ago, 0223998743 said:

Any screenshots comparison about the ambient occlusion ?

The post I linked in the middle of my previous post contains a very good example of the differences in Ambient occlusion between 1.00 and any patched version. 

 

Here is the link to it again:

 

https://gtaforums.com/topic/920233-patch-103-discussion/?do=findComment&comment=1070555346

 

As I said, these differences - while seemingly huge in these comparison screenshots - are not actually as big of a deal as I anticipated once finally playing 1.00. 

 

It makes the most difference on things like NPCs, the Saint Denis tramway, and small intricate objects lying on tables.

 

Also, despite the labeling of 1.03 in those screenshots, these graphical cutbacks were actually applied in 1.02 - I’ve done the research to confirm this and it was easy since the game launched with 1.02. 

 

Just nobody seemed to realize it until 1.03 dropped, because I guess that’s when everyone began actively looking for graphical downgrades since it was the first major patch since the game released. 

Edited February 27, 2019 by daltontigerboy

[Sneaky Queeky]

I'm playing on the day one patch, I never patched the game after its release on October 26th, and its obvious to me the next patch affected the graphics. The trams in particular have shadows that are clearly missing in the next patch, and the lanterns hanging around the saloon and general store in Valentine have clearly been turned off in the next patch, and its funny how those lanterns were apparently responsible for the infamous cutscene that DF claimed dropped the framerate down to dramatic levels. Yet the later patches have not improved this cutscene at all, at the expense of a decrease in lighting and detail. This is most apparent on Xbox X, where framerate has been wonky ever since, yet the whole point of downgrading the lighting seemed to be performance. This happened with GTA 5, and its happening again. To make MP smoother Rockstar always start with the lighting and draw distance. With GTA 5 for the first three years my character would spawn perfectly fine with a drawn world, but after numerous patches, now my character spawns and the world is drawn around him as if its catching up. I fear this will happen with RDR 2 in the future.

[Guest Guest176525326]

20 minutes ago, daltontigerboy said:

The post I linked in the middle of my previous post contains a very good example of the differences in Ambient occlusion between 1.00 and any patched version. 

 

Here is the link to it again:

 

https://gtaforums.com/topic/920233-patch-103-discussion/?do=findComment&comment=1070555346

 

As I said, these differences - while seemingly huge in these comparison screenshots - are not actually as big of a deal as I anticipated once finally playing 1.00. 

 

It makes the most difference on things like NPCs, the Saint Denis tramway, and small intricate objects lying on tables.

 

Also, despite the labeling of 1.03 in those screenshots, these graphical cutbacks were actually applied in 1.02 - I’ve done the research to confirm this and it was easy since the game launched with 1.02. 

 

Just nobody seemed to realize it until 1.03 dropped, because I guess that’s when everyone began actively looking for graphical downgrades since it was the first major patch since the game released. 

There is definitely a downgrade, and the performance on One X is not as smooth as it was on day one, but even so I have got used to it now and frankly it doesn’t bother me anymore. The game still rocks.

[Adamska_]

3 hours ago, daltontigerboy said:

The following post is regarding the alledged graphical downgrades to RDR2, relative to the unpatched 1.00 version of the game, and the 1.02 launch version of the game.

 

This has nothing to do with downgrades/fixes in regards to mechanics, glitches, exploits, clothing differences, or anything else. It is strictly regarding the subject of graphical downgrades. 

 

Hello. 

 

I havent posted on this forum in nearly 4 years. 

I am, however, a massive fan of GTA, RDR, and RockstarGames as a whole. 

 

Red Dead Redemption 2 is now my favorite game of all time - finally surpassing GTA IV - and exceeding my sky high expectations I had built up during the grueling 2 year wait from announcement to release. 

 

Naturally, as the avid fan that I am, I have become obsessed with the game since launch. In the last month, I have been absolutely enamored in this world as I work my way towards 100% completion. 

 

I’ve always been someone who loathes the concept of game developers downgrading their games (especially post-launch), and in the case of Rockstar, I’m doubly paranoid about the idea. 

 

As someone who recently converted their gaming library to digital, and who also enjoys playing Online, it’s now a little difficult for me to retain access to the original unpatched versions of games. 

 

Therefore, the downgrade-fearing side of me was never really activated, as my first experience with Red Dead Redemption 2 on October 26th, 2018 was based on patch 1.02, a point at which the game had already suffered the graphical cutbacks. (Of which I was unaware of at that time)

 

It was only recently (earlier this month to be exact), that I had become curious about these alledged downgrades, and wanted to see what 1.00 had to offer; but before doing that I needed to see if the game had been downgraded any since 1.02.

 

After spending hours (and I mean hours) of my time watching old recorded footage I had of 1.02, and comparing it to 1.05 in direct frame-by-frame scenes, I came to the conclusion that no downgrade had taken place between these versions.  I went back and played missions using the same time of day & weather, and switched back and forth between 1.02 footage and 1.05 gameplay in several scenes/locations to do this.

 

The only visual difference - noticeable to me anyway - between 1.02 and 1.05 is the lanterns in front of Worth’s general store are turned off at night (this change was introduced in patch 1.03).

 

_______________

 

I had stumbled across this post sometime earlier this month, displaying a CLEAR downgrade in ambient occlusion from the unpatched 1.00 version. 

This obviously bothered me - but not too much - since knowing that the visuals I saw on day one (1.02) matched the current visuals of the game at the time (1.05) after my lengthy personal investigation. 

 

The funny thing about that post, and the thread its within for that matter, is that these downgrades already took place before patch 1.03, yet it was only once 1.03 released that people began to notice. 

 

Once again, I went back and watched 1.02 footage of my own (and YouTube) to confirm this. The ambient occlusion had already been downgraded on 1.02. It’s obvious as soon as you step foot in a general store (ambient occlusion missing on all of the intricate products on the shelf).  Like I said earlier, the only major visual change between 1.02 and 1.03 is the Worth’s General Store lights were turned off. 

 

However, I was now morbidly curious about the extent of the downgrade from 1.00, so I went and bought a disc copy of RDR2. 

 

I needed to see what all I was missing out on in terms of graphics. Was 1.02 & onwards really that downgraded from the pure, untouched magic of 1.00?

 

Well, after a few days playing unpatched, the answer quickly became clear. 

 

Outside of the obvious downgrade to Ambient Occlusion, and a very slight reduction in sharpness on PS4 Pro, there is no difference in graphics between unpatched and the patched versions. 

 

I performed the same techniques I used previously to compare 1.00 to my footage/screenshots of patched versions. 

 

Here are the only visual differences I noticed after playing 1.00 for a few days, and comparing it to the patched versions (which are all the same visually). 

 

TL;DR

 

RDR2 1.00 PS4 Pro

• Ambient Occlusion much better noticeable mainly on NPCs, the Saint Denis tramway, and small items laying on a table

• Resolution appears very slightly sharper, but it’s only really noticeable on grass/foliage textures

• Lanterns in front of Worth’s general store are lit at night

• Frame-rate performance is worse, especially in towns it’s super noticeable

• Map is extremely jerky/glitchy; icons lag behind as you try to scroll the map

 

Thats really it. I was expecting more and I’m honestly happy it’s not as serious as I worried it would be. 

 

Other than the points I described above - in terms of purely GRAPHICAL differences between 1.00 and patched versions - the graphics are identical. Textures, lighting, effects, character models, etc, all appear identical. 

 

Those who are claim they are seeing downgrades every time a new patch comes out are suffering from a placebo.

There is one more massive graphical difference you did not mentioned - the draw distance. Examples:

 

1. Cows will appear as pure white from a glance (the game simply doesn't load their stripes until you get really close)

 

2. Your own horse (at a certain distance, your horse will either look completely white and none of your equipment e.g. saddles, blankets, etc. will load until you get much closer)

 

3. The vistas. Before the graphical downgrade, the draw distances from wherever you were to the mountains in the distance was clear and immaculate. Now it's just a mix of permeated pixels. 

 

For reference,

 

I'm a day one player on the Xbox One X.

3 hours ago, BallinBallas said:

does the X version ask for a 4K update at install or is it good to go straight from the disc? want to know before I upgrade in a couple weeks. reaaaally trying to not get the latest update. 

 

Xbox users don't have a choice when it comes to updates.

They've also patched the rare horse glitch from random NPC riders. 

 

In other words, they've been working on sh*t that nobody asked for.

[Bobby West]

2 hours ago, Adamska_ said:

There is one more massive graphical difference you did not mentioned - the draw distance. Examples:

 

1. Cows will appear as pure white from a glance (the game simply doesn't load their stripes until you get really close)

 

2. Your own horse (at a certain distance, your horse will either look completely white and none of your equipment e.g. saddles, blankets, etc. will load until you get much closer)

 

3. The vistas. Before the graphical downgrade, the draw distances from wherever you were to the mountains in the distance was clear and immaculate. Now it's just a mix of permeated pixels. 

 

For reference,

 

I'm a day one player on the Xbox One X.

 

Xbox users don't have a choice when it comes to updates.

They've also patched the rare horse glitch from random NPC riders. 

 

In other words, they've been working on sh*t that nobody asked for.

This is exactly it. I played a good while on the xbox one X before stupidly deciding to update so I could play online. Red Dead Online looked immediately worse so I won't even count that, but what pissed me off is that my single player took a huge graphical hit. 

 

When most people speak of a graphical downgrade I think it is those of us with an Xbox one X. It's like they lowered the level on the X (which I spent several hundred dollars more on for the graphical and performance capabilities) in order to match the other consoles despite not having any issues itself. I only bought the X for Red Dead 2 so it's quite disappointing, and as an Xbox player I can't even go back to the day one version.

Edited February 27, 2019 by Bobby West

[Guest Guest176525326]

1 hour ago, Bobby West said:

This is exactly it. I played a good while on the xbox one X before stupidly deciding to update so I could play online. Red Dead Online looked immediately worse so I won't even count that, but what pissed me off is that my single player took a huge graphical hit. 

 

When most people speak of a graphical downgrade I think it is those of us with an Xbox one X. It's like they lowered the level on the X (which I spent several hundred dollars more on for the graphical and performance capabilities) in order to match the other consoles despite not having any issues itself. I only bought the X for Red Dead 2 so it's quite disappointing, and as an Xbox player I can't even go back to the day one version.

Same here, bought the One X just for RDR2 as the game ran horribly on the base PS4, low 20 FPS in Saint Denis. 

 

First out of the box the game was like night and day when compared to the PS4. It was simply stunning. Unfortunately the patches have downgraded the experience quite a lot. 

[Darealbandicoot]

5 hours ago, Bobby West said:

This is exactly it. I played a good while on the xbox one X before stupidly deciding to update so I could play online. Red Dead Online looked immediately worse so I won't even count that, but what pissed me off is that my single player took a huge graphical hit. 

 

When most people speak of a graphical downgrade I think it is those of us with an Xbox one X. It's like they lowered the level on the X (which I spent several hundred dollars more on for the graphical and performance capabilities) in order to match the other consoles despite not having any issues itself. I only bought the X for Red Dead 2 so it's quite disappointing, and as an Xbox player I can't even go back to the day one version.

The other consoles have nothing to do with the downgrades though as Rockstar downgraded the game across the board INCLUDING the Xbox One S version and it's very visibly downgraded on base PS4 and PS4 PRO as well. Rockstar only made an effort for reviews. After that they told us to f*ck off and play Online. 

[Adamska_]

2 hours ago, Darealbandicoot said:

The other consoles have nothing to do with the downgrades though as Rockstar downgraded the game across the board INCLUDING the Xbox One S version and it's very visibly downgraded on base PS4 and PS4 PRO as well. Rockstar only made an effort for reviews. After that they told us to f*ck off and play Online. 

 

The graphical downgrades were made with RDO in mind. They had to curate the game to make it seem like the transition between SP and RDO was seamless. There's just simply no way in hell the day one optimized graphics would be able to run RDO, a "beta" with so many unknown and random bugs.

[Darealbandicoot]

Just now, Adamska_ said:

 

The graphical downgrades were made with RDO in mind. They had to curate the game to make it seem like the transition between SP and RDO was seamless. There's just simply no way in hell the day one optimized graphics would be able to run RDO, a "beta" with so many unknown and random bugs.

I know, BUT why the HELL didn't they just downgrade the multiplayer only like GTA V did for a while until they abandoned single player all together. 

[Adamska_]

2 minutes ago, Darealbandicoot said:

I know, BUT why the HELL didn't they just downgrade the multiplayer only like GTA V did for a while until they abandoned single player all together. 

 

Possible reasons:

 

1. Too hard (even though I heard they found it easiest while working with the Xbox One X).

 

2. They simply don't know how.

 

3. They don't give a f*ck.

[Darealbandicoot]

2 minutes ago, Adamska_ said:

 

Possible reasons:

 

1. Too hard (even though I heard they found it easiest while working with the Xbox One X).

 

2. They simply don't know how.

 

3. They don't give a f*ck.

I go for number 3

[Birdy22]

14 hours ago, BallinBallas said:

does the X version ask for a 4K update at install or is it good to go straight from the disc? want to know before I upgrade in a couple weeks. reaaaally trying to not get the latest update. 

No, the version 1.0 is Xbox one X enhanced and needs no update.
It was this version which was overwhelmed by the press with highest scores.  even before the Day one update.

[Adamska_]

5 minutes ago, Birdy22 said:

No, the version 1.0 is Xbox one X enhanced and needs no update.
It was this version which was overwhelmed by the press with highest scores.  even before the Day one update.

 

What do you mean, no update? I had to update it.

 

Are you saying I can go back to 1.0 on my Xbox One X?

[Cutter De Blanc]

32 minutes ago, Adamska_ said:

 

Possible reasons:

 

1. Too hard (even though I heard they found it easiest while working with the Xbox One X).

 

2. They simply don't know how.

 

3. They don't give a f*ck.

Reasons 1 and 3 are pretty much the same

 

"Too hard"? f*ckin do your job that you're paid to do and presumably went to school for. I have no sympathy for laziness in business

[Birdy22]

40 minutes ago, Adamska_ said:

 

What do you mean, no update? I had to update it.

 

Are you saying I can go back to 1.0 on my Xbox One X?

But of course. I have the 1.0 version running on my XBox One X and also on the One. How the installation works I have already described in this Tread.

[Adamska_]

1 hour ago, Birdy22 said:

But of course. I have the 1.0 version running on my XBox One X and also on the One. How the installation works I have already described in this Tread.

 

I only have a Xbox One X and my copy of the game is digital.

 

f*ck!!

[Red Hardbro]

These azzholes really fixed a glitch that didn’t hurt anyone, but still have yet to add Director Mode and won’t be putting online guns into story mode and have still not addressed the HDR problem with the ps4 pro’s. But yeah let’s stop people from going to New Austin with Arthur!!! What this better be for a dlc with Arthur visiting New Austin if not they just stop this glitch just because they could which is a dick move!! Starting to really hate these guys and they are my favorite company too!

[Cutter De Blanc]

6 minutes ago, Red Hardbro said:

These azzholes really fixed a glitch that didn’t hurt anyone, but still have yet to add Director Mode and won’t be putting online guns into story mode and have still not addressed the HDR problem with the ps4 pro’s. But yeah let’s stop people from going to New Austin with Arthur!!! What this better be for a dlc with Arthur visiting New Austin if not they just stop this glitch just because they could which is a dick move!! Starting to really hate these guys and they are my favorite company too!

It's really a ridiculous fix too. Rather than fix the actual glitch, they just made it so you can't do it anymore by making it so you can't fail the optional objective in the mission.

 

f*cking sh*tty developers can't do anything right, can't even fix a glitch, too f*cking stupid and lazy to fix it properly 

Edited February 27, 2019 by Cutter De Blanc

[Red Hardbro]

48 minutes ago, Cutter De Blanc said:

It's really a ridiculous fix too. Rather than fix the actual glitch, they just made it so you can't do it anymore by making it so you can't fail the optional objective in the mission.

 

f*cking sh*tty developers can't do anything right, can't even fix a glitch, too f*cking stupid and lazy to fix it properly 

Wow!! I didn’t even know that I had heard it was patched, but I thought they went back in and did something. So you mean to tell me they can’t even fix the glitches the right way wow!! And i’m Not an online player at all in Rdr 2 but they promised an update and it turned out to be things that are coming in the future drip feed or whatever they call it! So basically the thing that happened on Tuesday was f ucking useless. I usually don’t get pissed at small things like this, but I know for a fact they are sitting on Director Mode and giving us the ability to save cheats because these things aren’t new they were in previous Rockstar games what the F UCK is the hold up! I mean really April can’t come soon enough if they don’t get their sh*t together I’m going with Days Gone and MK11!

Edited February 27, 2019 by Red Hardbro

[Darealbandicoot]

1 hour ago, Red Hardbro said:

These azzholes really fixed a glitch that didn’t hurt anyone, but still have yet to add Director Mode and won’t be putting online guns into story mode and have still not addressed the HDR problem with the ps4 pro’s. But yeah let’s stop people from going to New Austin with Arthur!!! What this better be for a dlc with Arthur visiting New Austin if not they just stop this glitch just because they could which is a dick move!! Starting to really hate these guys and they are my favorite company too!

They patched it because they have bug quotas to fill. Each update has to "fix" something no matter what even if it breaks everything. 

[Red Hardbro]

6 minutes ago, Darealbandicoot said:

They patched it because they have bug quotas to fill. Each update has to "fix" something no matter what even if it breaks everything. 

At this point its just F UCK them! I just don’t know what’s going on with them and I just want to make movies with characters like Sean and Lenny the Rockstar editor\ Director Mode was one of the shining things they introduced in GTA 5 and it would be a shame if it wasn’t added.

[Guest Guest176525326]

10 hours ago, Birdy22 said:

But of course. I have the 1.0 version running on my XBox One X and also on the One. How the installation works I have already described in this Tread.

I wouldn’t say of course, I tried your method and it didn’t work. 

[Index]

On 1.0 is there certain clothing missing from shops? and i'm guessing the gaining weight is still bugged?

Edited February 28, 2019 by DEADWOODZ

[Cutter De Blanc]

16 minutes ago, DEADWOODZ said:

On 1.0 is there certain clothing missing from shops? and i'm guessing the gaining weight is still bugged?

Gaining weight does seem to be bugged. I have to eat a bunch, then save and reload to bring my weight back up, otherwise it just stays at whatever it was, doesn't go up or down

 

If I don't eat before saving, when I reload my weight goes down.

 

At least I can still do it reliably

Edited February 28, 2019 by Cutter De Blanc

[Pistol Bobcat]

Been playing on 1.00 for nearly three days now. 

 

Game looks fine as ever. I definitely have noticed a rise in npc's, expecially travellers on the road.

 

My only gripe with 1.00 is not being able to feed my Horse while galloping, have to sit still to give her herbs or provisions. Anyone else noticed This? 

 

But as long as I never update,  I can happily keep exploring New Austin and Mexico as Arthur (already studied all animals in guarma, so no need to go all the way back again )

[Index]

2 hours ago, Fox in a Box said:

 

 

My only gripe with 1.00 is not being able to feed my Horse while galloping, have to sit still to give her herbs or provisions. Anyone else noticed This? 

Yup i remember that from when the game first released, i'm also back on 1.0 and it's the same.

Quote

 

But as long as I never update,  I can happily keep exploring New Austin and Mexico as Arthur (already studied all animals in guarma, so no need to go all the way back again )

& yeah, i'll be keeping offline for a while now...was playing my 2nd play-through and then the update dropped...NA here i come!

Edited February 28, 2019 by DEADWOODZ