Red Dead Redemption has some quirks

1UP is reporting some strange differences between the PS3 and the Xbox360 version of Red Dead Redemption. It's been known that there would be some exclusive content for PS3 owners but nothings been said for Xbox360 owners. Well it turns out that the Xbox360 owners are getting a higher resolution game. The PS3 version of the game is being reported to run at 640p while the Xbox360 version is being reported to run at 720p with 2x anti-aliasing. This seems to be a trend in Rockstar's games. When GTA IV came out Joystiq reported that the PS3 version was running at 640p and the Xbox360 at 720p.

On top of the resolution differences 1UP is also reporting that Red Dead Redemption won't allow Xbox360 gamers with to play the Free Roam mode over LAN using the Xbox360's system link. 

Red Dead Redemption was released today in North America and is scheduled to be released to the rest of the world May 21. The game is a successor to the game Red Dead Revolver which was release in 2004 for the PS2 and the original Xbox.

Image credit: Rockstar Games

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Arizona school board testing "magic" bus

Next Story

Smartphone worldwide sales rise, Google overtakes Microsoft

69 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

You know, it's funny, but I didn't hear about this game at all until this article. And yet one of my friends picked it up first day. Guess I'm behind on my research.

causa45 said,
Not really a game I am waiting for, what kind of game is it by the way, like Grand Theft Auto?

Imagine GTA in the Wild West. Pretty much that from what I hear.

wow i feel so bad for consoles and their low resolutions. this is like comparing resolutions between starcraft and warcraft 2, if either were in widescreen.

ofc when this game comes out for pc it will run much worse on much much better hardware at even 1440x900.

NESTRAPEZ said,
lol good luck

not very hard. they have only got a few games that were ever worth playing or are you still playing their GTA series which is just the same game over and over. Never understood why people kept buying that series other than when there were graphic upgrades. Stealing cars and driving out aimlessly killing people does get old after a few years.

The PS3 is known to be a harder console to code for, this was the same problem that was thrown around with the PS2. The difference is, that now Xbox has the (user) advantage, thus games are created for Xbox first, and ported over. I don't like knowing that another (older) console is getting better graphics, but there isn't much I can do about it. Their system (xbox) has matured and developers know how to take advantage of the system.

I never played revolver, so I don't know if I'll pick this up, but I may go rent it for PS3

SaltLife said,
I never played revolver, so I don't know if I'll pick this up, but I may go rent it for PS3

I'm gonna be picking it up just based on the videos I've seen. The multiplayer looks awesome. I'm a cod fan and they have a few cod like features in it among other cool stuff. If you're not sure, renting is always the way to go. That usually what I do. I don't know about single player but the MP looks to be pretty good. I haven't played Revolver either.

Edited by The Guru Network, May 19 2010, 12:26pm :

This is laughable. The PS3 is a superior console technically ... all this proves is that Rockstar aren't quite the triple A developer people wanna believe. Check out Crysis2 when it hits. PS3 vs Xbox isn't my issue here ... I have both and use both regularly. But it's embarrassing for a developer to be that slack. And that's all this is. It's lack of talent.

PS3 version was running at 640p

Wow, resolution of late 1990s and the early 2000s. My grandma would be amazed.

Consoles are holding progress of gaming industry. Check the numbers:

nVidia 6800UT: 16 shader pipelines at 1100MHz = 17.6G shader operations per second
X360: 48 pipes x 500MHz = 24.0G sop/s
nVidia 7800GTX: 24 pipes x 1200Mhz = 28.8G sop/s
nVidia 8800GTX: 128 pipes x 1350Mhz = 166.4G sop/s
nVidia GTX 275: 240 pipes x 1404Mhz = 337.0G sop/s
nVidia GTX 470: 448 pipes x 1215MHz = 571.1G sop/s

GTX 275 is ~14 times and GTX 470 is ~22 times more powerful than X360 or PS3! Overall speed difference would be even bigger if you throw Intel Core Duo 2 CPUs range into equation. PS3 and 360 have GPU equivalent to old nVidia 6800. PC with nVidia 8800 is 4 times more powerful than PS3/360.

Today, you can buy crappy PC with same power as console for £300 and PC will do much more useful things than just games. Such cheap PC could reproduce "console" quality (1280x720p, anti-aliasing: off, many effects: off) without any problems. Nearly any cheap nVidia card in combination with cheap Intel CPU will blow any console away.

I am wondering when console superiority hype will finaly die snce consoles are most powerful only for ~6 months after their initial release to the market. After that PC's will catch-up and beat the crap out of console price/value ratio.

Edited by EJocys, May 19 2010, 12:43pm :

EJocys said,

I am wondering when console superiority hype will finaly die snce consoles are most powerful only for ~6 months after their initial release to the market. After that PC's will catch-up and beat the crap out of console price/value ratio.

That didn't even hold true for the last set of consoles. They were already years behind the PC hardware. The only thing they ever did any good was the processors but PC's catch up to that fast. The graphics on the consoles were pathetic when 360 and PS3 came out. That being said, Guitar hero and Rock Band don't exactly need advanced graphics .

EJocys said,

Wow, resolution of late 1990s and the early 2000s. My grandma would be amazed.

*snip*.


sadly due to lazy devs ports from consoles to PCs require much more powerful hardware to run well on than the much weaker hardware of the consoles.

just look at gta4 360vsPC.

Have it pre-ordered for the PS3. I don't care about the whole PS3 vs Xbox thing, it's old and it's tiring. The fact of the matter is I'm getting the exact same game, and supporting the studio that continues to impress with AAA titles.

The only game that I think looks nice on the PS3 is Killzone 2. Now that is a beautiful game.

From what I've seen though, the Xbox 360 looks the better of the 2 versions, I will be buying a copy on both formats, as I have friends on both consoles that have one or the other. Could the 360 higher res be something to do with the Direct X texture compression and the fact that its "easier" to code for the 360 due to the Windows based kernels etc?

BoondockSaint said,
You forgot Uncharted, Uncharted 2, God of War 3 etc

I've played Uncharted and Uncharted 2 and didn't think they were anything special. Uncharted 2 did nothing but stutter and take forever to load, using a new PS3 Slim too. I have not played God of War 3, but have heard it looks good. I'm not a big PS3 gamer, so am only commenting on things I've seen.

Edited by Bryer, May 19 2010, 11:16am :

ZeroHour said,

Troll post, in HIS opinion he thinks Killzone...

You call him a troll for doing the exact same thing and stating his opinion? He might not have posted it the same way but it's still just another opinion.

dogmai said,

You call him a troll for doing the exact same thing and stating his opinion? He might not have posted it the same way but it's still just another opinion.

Did you just admit you are a troll ><

Septimus said,
Rockstar lazy on the PS3 version shock.

well probably because it's harder to code games for in general from what i heard vs the 360.

so from a developers standpoint the 360 is the better console.

ThaCrip said,

well probably because it's harder to code games for in general from what i heard vs the 360.

so from a developers standpoint the 360 is the better console.

I'm actually talking to my PS3 dev friend while I'm reading these comments and he says exactly the same thing.

I own both a 360 and a PS3. I'll be buying it for PS3 simply because of the fact I don't believe in paying for something that should be free. (Xbox Live)

Vulghore said,
I own both a 360 and a PS3. I'll be buying it for PS3 simply because of the fact I don't believe in paying for something that should be free. (Xbox Live)

$30 a year for live is nothing if u ask me

Vulghore said,
I own both a 360 and a PS3. I'll be buying it for PS3 simply because of the fact I don't believe in paying for something that should be free. (Xbox Live)

I don't care about multiplayer so I don't pay for live (silver user). I game for a good story more than the ability to run around a map and just shoot at others with no real point, I get how that's fun for most, but I find it boring.

-=SEDIN=- said,

$30 a year for live is nothing if u ask me

Even if it was $5 a year, I still wouldn't pay it.

I mostly play games on PC, so I guess I take for granite that MP is free.

It's just M$ milking people for as much as they can.

Last time I checked, $30 is $30 more dollars than nothing.

Edited by Vulghore, May 19 2010, 7:06am :

Vulghore said,

Even if it was $5 a year, I still wouldn't pay it.

I mostly play games on PC, so I guess I take for granite that MP is free.

It's just M$ milking people for as much as they can.

Last time I checked, $30 is $30 more dollars than nothing.

Think of it this way. If Live was free there'd be little incentive for Microsoft to keep adding new features. Money isn't exactly growing on trees but I'm still willing to play Microsoft the money as long as they keep Xbox Live maintained, working, and keep adding features.

If anyone else dislikes the price. Good for them. No one truly cares to be honest if you mind paying or not as it really doesn't matter.

DarkNovaGamer said,

Think of it this way. If Live was free there'd be little incentive for Microsoft to keep adding new features. Money isn't exactly growing on trees but I'm still willing to play Microsoft the money as long as they keep Xbox Live maintained, working, and keep adding features.

If anyone else dislikes the price. Good for them. No one truly cares to be honest if you mind paying or not as it really doesn't matter.

Sony and Nintendo maintain and update their online services and they aren't making their customers pay a subscription fee.

Vulghore said,

Sony and Nintendo maintain and update their online services and they aren't making their customers pay a subscription fee.

You might want to check about Sonys plans for a Premium PSN. I don't know what it'll involve (being announced at E3), but I suspect the days of the best features on a PS3 being free are gone.

shemmie said,

You might want to check about Sonys plans for a Premium PSN. I don't know what it'll involve (being announced at E3), but I suspect the days of the best features on a PS3 being free are gone.

The premium will be for bonus features, the core online play will remain free.

I think this is the model Microsoft should have adopted, perhaps with advert support, where the core online play is free, but extras such as voice chat etc is a paid for service. I play games mostly offline, however a couple of times i would have liked to have played some games online, but i cant justify £40 a year for the occasional game.

REM2000 said,

The premium will be for bonus features, the core online play will remain free.

I think this is the model Microsoft should have adopted, perhaps with advert support, where the core online play is free, but extras such as voice chat etc is a paid for service. I play games mostly offline, however a couple of times i would have liked to have played some games online, but i cant justify £40 a year for the occasional game.

I won't pay to play online. The gameplay itself shouldn't cost to play. Everything else, they can do whatever they want. I would switch back to the 360 if I could at least play my games. It should never have been this way in the first place. If they started charging on both consoles, I would just sell both of them.

Edited by The Guru Network, May 19 2010, 12:17pm :

dogmai said,

I won't pay to play online. The gameplay itself shouldn't cost to play. Everything else, they can do whatever they want. I would switch back to the 360 if I could at least play my games. It should never have been this way in the first place. If they started charging on both consoles, I would just sell both of them.

I'm in the same boat, if Sony chooses to take the route of M$ then I'll simply give up console gaming altogether. Most games make their way to PC (the superior platform anyways) eventually.

I figured as much. Rockstar got the RAGE engine working on 360 earlier with Table Tennis at 720p. There were issues once they expanded to the large world of GTA4, and instead of doing that again on PS3 they scaled it down. Overall having played both version of GTA4 it didn't really matter.

PhillAholic said,
I figured as much. Rockstar got the RAGE engine working on 360 earlier with Table Tennis at 720p. There were issues once they expanded to the large world of GTA4, and instead of doing that again on PS3 they scaled it down. Overall having played both version of GTA4 it didn't really matter.

Were the FPS neck to neck between the two consoles?

Sonic. said,

Were the FPS neck to neck between the two consoles?

I think they were close, its just they couldnt get the ps3 to keep up at the higher res.

PhillAholic said,
I figured as much. Rockstar got the RAGE engine working on 360 earlier with Table Tennis at 720p. There were issues once they expanded to the large world of GTA4, and instead of doing that again on PS3 they scaled it down. Overall having played both version of GTA4 it didn't really matter.

I'm guessing you mean id tech 5 engine? If so that's awesome, I'll be glad to see some compaines using ids latest engine this time!

schiz-o-phren-ic said,
i'll take the exclusives over something as petty and unnoticeable as resolution, any day.

So.. you would rather have a hideout and a top hat then a game that looks better in general... funny. You see, you'll be seeing the graphics difference 100% of the time your playing the game.. you'll use that hideout and hat.. what mayve 1% of the time. I'm willing to bet the "exclusive" content will be on XBOX Live as DLC in the near future.

As someone who owns both a Ps3 and an XBOX360 I'll be getting it on the XBOX.

Edited by Xionanx, May 19 2010, 4:37am :

schiz-o-phren-ic said,
i'll take the exclusives over something as petty and unnoticeable as resolution, any day.

You have to buy the game for a PS3. Verbatim gets my money though.

Xionanx said,

So.. you would rather have a hideout and a top hat then a game that looks better in general... funny.

Like I said, I rather have the exclusives. A soundtrack, a nice tophat and R* Social network exclusive challenges. I'll say it again for you, ANYDAY over the matter of 80 lines. YOu know what's I think is funny, the fact you think 80 lines matter. Its unnoticeable. SMH
buckhole said,

You have to buy the game for a PS3. Verbatim gets my money though.

Thanks for staying relevant. Enjoy your bannbox.

Edited by SimplySchizo, May 19 2010, 4:50am :

schiz-o-phren-ic said,

Thanks for staying relevant. Enjoy your bannbox.

Yaaarrrr...Pirates everywhere.....

Rockstar games are really enjoyable. if they cannot give full hd on a ps3 then Xbox 360 it is

schiz-o-phren-ic said,

Thanks for staying relevant. Enjoy your bannbox.

If he has 2 Xbox's (one for online and one for backups) he'll be fine.

Assumptions lead to doobies.

Edited by Motoko., May 19 2010, 5:21am :

schiz-o-phren-ic said,
i'll take the exclusives over something as petty and unnoticeable as resolution, any day.

It's funny how whenever the PS3 has better graphics suddenly that's what matters. Silly fanboys, always have to "win".

schiz-o-phren-ic said,
Like I said, I rather have the exclusives. A soundtrack, a nice tophat and R* Social network exclusive challenges. I'll say it again for you, ANYDAY over the matter of 80 lines. YOu know what's I think is funny, the fact you think 80 lines matter. Its unnoticeable. SMH.

80 lines AND 2x Anti-aliasing which will be noticeable. ars technica did a side by side comparison and had this to say, "The PlayStation 3 version looked impressive, but there was a noticeable jump in quality while playing on the 360" and "If you purchase the PS3 version of the game you're not going to be let down, but if you have the choice, pick up a copy for the 360."

Source:http://arstechnica.com/gaming/...360-vs-ps3-our-thoughts.ars

*Note, I don't own either a PS3 or 360

thornz0 said,
It's funny how whenever the PS3 has better graphics suddenly that's what matters. Silly fanboys, always have to "win".
You pull some stupid line out your ass then back it up by indirectly call me a fanboy cause I prefer extra content over something so negligible as 80lines across my display? What exactly would I be winning? Grow the **** up.

Edited by SimplySchizo, May 19 2010, 6:35am :

schiz-o-phren-ic said,
You pull some stupid line out your ass then indirectly call me a fanboy cause I prefer extra content over something so negligible as 80lines across my display? Grow the **** up.

In all seriousness, it is true that a lot of PS3 owners tend to gloat about their 'superior graphics'.

Umm, yeah I'll take better graphics that actually make a difference for the ENTIRE GAME over some crappy gimmicks like "NETWORK EXCLUSIVE CHALLENGES!!!11"

DarkNovaGamer said,

In all seriousness, it is true that a lot of PS3 owners tend to gloat about their 'superior graphics'.
While I see it on both sides of the fence, I have yet to see any of that taking place here. Do you? So why plug that into the discussion, I ask? Cause the guy's obviously...

Edited by SimplySchizo, May 19 2010, 6:13am :

schiz-o-phren-ic said,
You pull some stupid line out your ass then back it up by indirectly call me a fanboy cause I prefer extra content over something so negligible as 80lines across my display? What exactly would I be winning? Grow the **** up.

It's the antialiasing which makes the biggest difference, a higher resolution is just an added bonus. In all of your replies you seem to ignore the fact that there is no AA in the PS3 version. Saying this, I always say that gameplay > graphics, but then the added content on the PS3 doesn't seem to affect gameplay.

I would prefer the xbox verision (if I had any console), and I would be quite annoyed with R* if I had a PS3.

Edited by Minimoose, May 19 2010, 7:59am :

schiz-o-phren-ic said,
While I see it on both sides of the fence, I have yet to see any of that taking place here. Do you? So why plug that into the discussion, I ask? Cause the guy's obviously...

Why not? You're downplaying the lower res by saying you don't mind because you'd rather have the free extras that make up the difference. It's defesive because instead of just posting your opinion once and letting it go you bit into thornz0 bate post.

Oh and there's talk of framerate problems on the PS3. Yeah. Bad port, theres's no way around it and the exclusive content looks like an half ***** apology. Which is sad because it will be the version I'll be playing if there won't be one for PC.

schiz-o-phren-ic said,
i'll take the exclusives over something as petty and unnoticeable as resolution, any day.

I wouldn't as it's not unnoticeable, as this article proves anyway. A higher resolution combined with 2x AA seems a lot better to me.

Anyway I'll continue playing on PC anyway.... gl

buckhole said,

You have to buy the game for a PS3. Verbatim gets my money though.

LOL. (i caught the drift on that one) ... Verbatim got my money about 3-4 days ago to be more precise

--------------------

but anyways more on topic.... i think the 360 version will be better as i would rather have graphics boost vs some minimal additions to the game.

schiz-o-phren-ic said,
.

Seriously, is it gonna make that much of a difference. There are so many games out there where the graphics themselves are not supposed to matter but the gameplay sticks out. This game doesn't seem to have that kind of quality that you'd need great graphics for. Sure it's nicer to have the better quality but in the end, it doesn't matter. The people who are gonna play it are gonna play it no matter how good or bad the graphics are.

I've never gloated about the PS3 having superior graphics. I've never noticed a difference in quality unless the games have had an obvious difference set by the developers. Both systems are pretty much equal. I have both the 360 and PS3. I prefer the PS3 and my 360 sits on a shelf in a corner because it only came out because I had all my Guitar Hero and Rockband games for it. I don't play them anymore so eventually it moved from the TV stand to the closet to get the eyesore out of the way.

One thing I've always hated was the size and look of both the 360 and PS3. I don't mind the slim PS3, which I have now. I just need a reason to switch back to the 360. The only thing will be if Microsoft were to drop the pay part of XBL. They were in talks and planning as of last year to do that. I haven't heard much lately but hopefully they can pull it off. I don't care if it's ad based (outside of games & movies).

Anyways, does it really matter which system you get it for? We're gonna play it and we're gonna enjoy it. It's a letdown that the PS3 version has the worse of the two for graphics considering we're supposed to be the ones with exclusives. You'd think we'd get the better graphics and content. They're supposed to show up the other console players when they're trying to give exclusives. Now the 360 fans are gonna still be laughing at us thinking... or sorry, knowing they're better than us. We can't prove otherwise because they pay for their service so it has to be better. I don't get that. Oh well. lol I need to shut up now. Just get it for whatever system you feel like playing it on. PS3 has the exclusive content, 360 has the better quality(just this instance & a few others lol).

buckhole said,

You have to buy the game for a PS3. Verbatim gets my money though.

lol
+1 for sincerity

Anyways, in theory you can't find any difference between 640p and 720p so, may be the ps3 version is not only featuring 640p but also they are using low resolution models or compressed textures or you could say, a rushed version.