YouTube’s ‘ZEROx’ has shared a video, showing 15 minutes of gameplay footage from the Playstation 3 version of Red Dead Redemption running on the RPCS3 emulator. The good news here is that it appears that the game is almost fully playable on RPCS3. The bad news is that it currently requires the best CPU in order to be played.
In order to capture and play the game, ZEROx used the latest high-end Intel core CPU, the i9 i990K. Moreover, the game still had some drops to 20fps in various scenes and there were still some graphical glitches. However, it appears that those with the extra CPU horsepower can actually play and finish the game right now.
Since Rockstar does not plan to release a remastered version of Red Dead Redemption on the PC, this Playstation 3 emulator is the best way via which PC gamers will be able to experience this open-world title (unless of course they buy a PS3 or use PS Now).
ZEROx has used a custom version of RPCS3 in order to play Red Dead Redemption and those interested can download it from here.
I’m pretty sure that the RPCS3 team will continue improving performance and reducing the graphical glitches in Red Dead Redemption throughout 2019, so hopefully by the time Red Dead Redemption 2 comes out on the PC, the first game will be fully playable on the emulator.
Enjoy!
John is the founder and Editor in Chief at DSOGaming. He is a PC gaming fan and highly supports the modding and indie communities. Before creating DSOGaming, John worked on numerous gaming websites. While he is a die-hard PC gamer, his gaming roots can be found on consoles. John loved – and still does – the 16-bit consoles, and considers SNES to be one of the best consoles. Still, the PC platform won him over consoles. That was mainly due to 3DFX and its iconic dedicated 3D accelerator graphics card, Voodoo 2. John has also written a higher degree thesis on the “The Evolution of PC graphics cards.”
Contact: Email
God dame!! Rock Star Still Denies to Release it on PC (Bad Game Coding) lame excuses. Just Give it to a Different Developer they can easily Port it to PC.
I’ve read the story about why it will never be on PC and from what I remember the work to do so would basically include rebuilding the game from the ground up.
The code that was used was some sort of mutation of the RAGE engine used for GTA 4, but they didn’t keep track of all the changes they made from the PC compatible version.
I’m sure if R* could have easily done the port they would have by now. They don’t ignore free money.
People need to stop spreading this fake excuse, where is the original source for this?
I’ve looked this up for the past few years, over and over again to try and find a source every-time I see it; there simply is no source, and it appears to be rumor at best.
The only thing I have found even remotely related to RDR1 being a “coding mess” is an article on Xboxachievements that references the games general development cycle as being a “mess” but says absolutely zero about the code issue that people continually bring up.
The article I’m talking about stated that Sam Houser said that the game was a “recurring nightmare” of mismanagement, delays, and the other usual stuff that we all hear about with Rockstar titles.
There also seems to be a quote which states that the game would come to PC when ever it’s “Viable(Financial, developmentally, and business-wise)”.but that of course doesn’t mean the game is a “mess” of code.
“Viable (Financial, developmentally, and business-wise)”
And that was the biggest reason that we never got the port for this game. It was a different time back in 2010. Console was still king and seen as the future of gaming and PC gamers were mostly considered as pirates anyway.
I agree, those are the biggest reasons why we never received the game, which I’m not mad at or anything. Would it have been cool to have the game on PC at some point since it came out? Sure. Is it necessary to still come out or am I holding my breath in anticipation? No, but then again I accepted it wasn’t ever coming years ago.
At this point, having played RDR, I don’t feel I’m missing out on much by having it not come to PC. Though I will be missing out on something if RDR2 never does come to the platform. Since the game is RDR with a far more robust game world, graphical fidelity, and arguably gameplay.
If it comes out and they give us the GTA:V treatment again with a version for PC with more features, I’ll be happy that I at least got one of the two and will get to experience it within a normal time frame since I don’t plan on buying a console anytime soon.
RDR2 plays out like a blend of Sony exclusive cinematic garbage gameplay and an Open World survival game.
Besides the usual marketing and fanboys I have no idea why people like this game outside it’s production values, most unispired and overrated sh*t I’ve played in a while.
8 seconds animation waiting periods and an intro that last 2 hours of gametime just adds salt to the wound.
True
Just goes to show that Rockstar shills where hard at work even back then. GTA5 is a smash hit on PC, and they coudn’t even bother releasing RDR2 to PC. If RDR ever gets ported to PC, it will be a multiplatform remaster, like, you know, GTA5.
No idea what the hell you’re talking about Rockstar Shills for. You mean the people who constantly want this game to desperately come to a platform that makes zero sense for them to waste the money on now that RDR2 has come out which makes more financial sense to make a remaster of?
You mean the GTA:V that took nearly two years after the games original release for consoles?
It’s almost as if Rockstar likes waiting a bit and releasing a remastered version of the game for the PC platform with better features.
Wait another near decade, I’m sure RDR will be coming to PC by then.
The Rockstar shills are the ones who keeps pretending there is a valid reason for not releasing Red Dead Redemption on PC.
“You mean the people who constantly want this game to desperately come to a platform that makes zero sense for them to waste the money on now that RDR2 has come out which makes more financial sense to make a remaster of?”
The people that makes excuses in general, and which remaster are you talking about, RDR or the sequel that barely got released?
There isn’t a valid reason to release it, especially not when RDR2 just came out. It’s almost a decade old and they’re not spending money on the game to develop it when RDR2 just came out.
That doesn’t mske you a shill by saying that, it makes sense. Sorry you don’t understand that from a business decision, it doesn’t make much sense any more. It would have six years ago but not now.
“The RDR sequel that barely got released” right, barely released. OK
I’m talking about what they would do with RDR2 if they released it for PC, just like what they did with GTA:V, they remastered the game and added in better graphical content and released it for PC after it came out for Console.
Rockstar is playing it smart with releasing RDR2 on consoles first and PC later. Shrewd, but smart.
They did it with GTA 5 and I’m sure more than a few people ended up buying it (at least) twice. I bought it 3 times, PS3, PS4, and PC. All on release day and I don’t regret any of them because I got more playtime out of each of them than I get with 90% of other games. There aren’t many games that I consider worth $60 but GTA 5 and RDR2 give you that and a whole lot more.
Of course, they are. Shrewd, but insanely smart as all hell business with.
You’re a prime example of why RDR 1 isn’t coming. Why would they release RDR now, when they can make double if not triple their money on RDR2 within two years?
It gives them time to fix performance, increase fidelity, and offer a significantly better experience over the original release.
Much like Rockstar will probably release a version for whatever the new Xbox is and the PS5 turn out to be.
I’m looking forward to playing it when ever it comes to PC.
Mods, just like in GTA 5 should add a ton of gameplay as well. I wonder how many people bought GTA 5 on PC just for stuff like the police mods. I’d love to be able to mod a dune buggy into RDR 2, like I was hoping to do with the RDR map mod for GTA 5 that got shut down by Rockstar.
“There isn’t a valid reason to release it”
“That doesn’t mske you a shill by saying that, it makes sense. Sorry you don’t understand that from a business decision, it doesn’t make much sense any more. It would have six years ago but not now.”
Man, nothing but hardcore CEO in these comment sections (muh business decisions). What about Halo Wars 2, which came with a port of the first Halo Wars for PC? Since when does releasing more products to a wider market equals bad business decisions? Since being a CEO becomes screwing with potential costumers i guess, you probably came from the same school of CEO’s…
It is nonsense. The reason RDR never came to PC is due to a console exclusivity clause in the publishing contract. They are contractually bound to never release a PC version.
Do you have a source for that as well? how do you put a exclusivity clause on 2 consoles? Back then it was common to have multiplatform titles exclusive to both consoles.
Thats a lot of money to shell out for an already outdated console for one game. Emulator is the better answer honestly
True, I cant imagine anyone going that far but people keep finding ways to amaze me so who knows lol
i just bought a moded xbox 360 with 50$
Thats not even close to an xb1x with the gamepass sub so idk why you even threw that out there….
i bought it just to play this game
Thats a reasonable amount of money though, thats a bit different then the other route
it`s much cheaper than to buy a CPU with 500$ or more
The problem is this and RDR 2 would be the only reasons to buy a very expensive xbox one x
The problem with buying a Xbone X is that, er, you get a Xbone X!
Finally someone using an i9-9900k instead of the usual i5-2500k to demonstrate a CPU heavy emulator.
But that means my i7-4770K @ 4.2GHz is going to suck at running this! 🙁
A few more months and we will hopefully have it a running perfectly and better optimized.
I dont think it is using 100% of the i9-9900k… Needs more optimisation to fully use “modern” CPU’s.
What? You don’t like all your videos to have outdated hardware testing out video games and then the videos reported as fact of the state of these Emulators by various websites trying to get clickbait tier articles in?
Yes! Nothing showcases emulation better than using latest nasa multicore technology!
the thing is all of these emulators even something like cemu which runs games at 4k and 60fps don’t have full mouse and keyboard controls so even if red dead runs perfectly fine at 60fps and 4k on rpcs3, it just wouldn’t be playable with mouse and keyboard so for those like me who never touch controllers under any circumstances, this is pointless.
before some nerd comes here to correct me, mouse and keyboard work but mouse feels awful, keyboard works but most of the times you gotta look at controls to see what to press.
Exactly i don’t care how good the emulation gets shooting with controller is absolutely no go for me. I can play something like Forza or fifa with controller.
“still had some drops to 20fps”
Even if they achieve 100% accurate emulation then the game will still do that. In fact it’ll do worse because the PS3 version of RDR ran abysmally. Much worse than on Xbox 360 and with pared back visuals relative to Microsoft’s console. It was known for having been one of the worst optimised multi-platform games on PS3 albeit not quite in the same league of awfulness as Bayonetta. It routinely runs in the mid-20s and occasionally dips below 20fps on Sony’s console.
Before one of the site’s couple of Sony Pony’s spit the dummy (looking at you, bizzysgs!) then take Digital Foundry’s evidence as proof,
www(dot)youtube(dot)com/watch?v=tOq25Zo8pes
Well to be fair the ps3 version was decent enough visually the framerate was bad but at least the motion blur was good enough to minimize how dreadful it was, if both version looked like the ps3 version red dead redemption would still be good, but i like rockstar way of not catering to parity, but for some reason when gta 5 released it was the opposite the ps3 version looked better and had more textures assets, i guess with gta5 it was a cpu bottleneck and it needed more threads(used the cell spu more effectively) eveneon pc gta5 is a cpu hungry game and textures could be streamed from the blueray while the 360 was still using dvd’s, and in red dead redemption case it was gpubound and bandwith hungry better shadows,reflections,textures,resolution,denser and higher quality grass sprites, 2xmsaa and on top of that better framerate
Still the ps3 version was solid enough to not be a disaster like bayonetta ps3
I had the misfortune to have bought both RDR and Bayonetta to play on my PS3. D’oh! Yes, the PS3 version of RDR wasn’t as poorly optimised as Bayonetta but not much else was to be fair! It still ran worse than on Xbox 360 along with rendering at a lower resolution and with pared back visual settings. I managed to tolerate it back in the day because as a then console-only gamer I was used to such low standards so didn’t really know much better.
I tried playing it again just a couple of months ago and at times it felt like a blurred slide show (not wholly dissimilar to The Last Of Us, truth be told). Not totally unplayable by any means but PC gaming has perhaps raised the bar for me insofar as what minimum standards I’m willing to tolerate.
Ouch bayonetta ps3 when the reviews actually bothered to review the ps3 version separately and remove 1-3 points belows the 360 version i knew i had to stay clear from this,untill we finally got a pc version
The memory is painful so enough already of having me relive it, lol!
ps3 rdr was fine tool. I played on both and unless you were a tool (like many of you here are) and looked for the sh*t, you could not tell. Of course titty babies like the readers here would.
Another day, another braindead comment from you. You’re consistent if nothing else. gg
Even if they achieve 100% accurate emulation then the game will still do that.
Not true. 100% accurate does not mean it has to be as slow. It can easily be faster, like many mature emulators are.
I meant “100% accurate” insofar as being wholly faithful in every aspect to the performance of the original host console hardware. Of course I appreciate that it may be possible to boost performance, in numerous ways, beyond that.
No. 100% accurate emulation means to emulate the console as it was even with the flaws. A perfect example for this would be Higan also know now as BNES, in games like Zelda a Link to The Past and Star Fox the game suffers quite some slowdonws but its because it would happen on the real console as well, my father still has his SNES and i compared side by side with multiple emulators Higan, ZNES, Snes9x etc and it’s quite astounishing how accurate Higan is.
But not everyone cares about 100% accurate emulation. I want the game to perform better than it did on its native console.
Sure so do i, but that is not the point. The point is that 100% accurate emulation is the same experience of the console. Nobody said you could not improve it, it just would not be 100% accurate emulation anymore.
Point is nobody does what you consider as “100%” accurate. A PS3 running at 2x the clockspeed would still be as accurate as the base PS3. Maybe some games would break (e.g. run in fast motion) because they were coded badly but that’s it.
Dude you have no idea what are you talking about, go read about emulation before you start spouting nonsense. Overclocking a emulators CPU is a hack and as it is a hack most of the times it will come with problems, sometimes minor bugs but usually it results in major issues.
FIY is not what i consider 100% accurate, is what the community and the emulators Devs consider as accurate.
Haha, I have no idea, wanna bet? Emulators aren’t made with “CPUs to overclock”, the whole point is to map one instruction set to another, while emulating one system architecture on another. There is no way to ensure the emulated instructions will run at the same speed as they do on a physical device.
Yes there is is called Cycle accuracy, is when a emulator emulate timings right down to per-cycle accesses. So each individual component is emulated at exactly the right time.
PS The ironies about emulation is that improving timing accuracy by half measures is almost as likely to break games as to fix them.
I will wait for xenia, the 360 version is superior in everyway
A year or two will suffice.
xenia’s version will likely take a long while. anyhow the 360 version had better resolution and framerate, beyond that the assets were identical. Emulation could easily exceed those features, making it better than either versions. which ever version has better emulation should suffice.
So it’s more cost effective to buy a console than to buy the 9900K to emulate the game
You don’t buy 9900K just for one emulator…
You really think it’s using 100% of the 9900K ??? Hell no! There’s still multiple optimisation to do..
It dropped often below 20fps even with Xbox 360