Red Dead Redemption - Discussion Thread

[xXx]

360 arcade plans..postponed :bleh:

250gb Slim...it is then....

 

[Lord Nemesis]

if you did,you would know that alot of visuals can be improved by 2x AA.

That's a pretty blanket statement to make. At high resolutions, with 2x AA you will not see much of an improvement since the pixels are so small that the Aliasing artifacts are not easily visible. If you render a image at a lower resolution, apply AA and scale it to a higher resolution then also it will not look good. Some defects can become even more glaring after AA. AA in general addresses a particular kind of artifact called Aliasing that is noticeable is mainly at the edges of objects. It does not magically remove or minimize all sorts of defects nor is there any guarantee that you would like the result of AA. Applying AA can improve and worsen the image quality depending on the conditions and how the AA is applied.

For your info, both GTA4 and RDR do have AA on PS3. Its a different sort of AA called Quincunx AA that is only available in nVidia GPU's. This AA basically works like a smoothing filter. While MSAA also adds extra pixels to the edges to make the jaggies less apparent, it still retains the sharp boundaries of the object. Quincunx brings a somewhat different sort of smoothing. Upscaling + Quincunx AA leads to the blurry washed out look that you get in the PS3 version of GTA4 and the same is evident in RDR PS3 version as well. Its not essentially a bad thing either as there are people who like the PS3 look compared to the 360 one.

right,you just see the clip or the game just just find out the res.it can also be that you think that 360 is better as 2x AA is applied but you think that it has better res

you were directly comparing it to GTA4,you actually took it as one of your proving point that just because GTA4 was same level,so is RDR but you don't have anything else

how can you see the effects of up-scaling

Care to point out where I said I deduced the exact resolution just by looking at comparisons? I only remember saying that It was evident to me that both games are not running at the same resolution and there is some upscaling and blurring happening in PS3 version. GTA4 comes into the picture because it uses the same engine and had the same kind of implementation. Even without looking at a comparison video, the effect of scaling and blurring was evident in GTA4. So what do you deduce when you see the same kind of effect in RDR?

You cannot deduce the exact resolution but, but its quite possible to understand what was caused by lack of AA and what was caused by some other reason if you understand what AA does to the image. I did not know from the video that the game was running at 640p, but its definitely evident to me that its not exactly running at the same resolution as the 360 version.

Here is an unscientific analysis (as he calls it) made by another guy

While it's silly to dismiss a game because of minor visual disparities on one platform versus another, it's just as silly to pretend those differences aren't there.

They exist in the Xbox 360 and PS3 versions of Red Dead Redemption, just as they did in Rockstar's Grand Theft Auto IV. As far as I can tell after messing around with both versions, and granted I'm speaking unscientifically, they look to be the same differences. Like GTA IV, Red Dead Redemption on the PS3 appears to be internally rendering at a lower resolution--some think 1152 x 640, or GTA IV's PS3 resolution--after which it's being software upscaled to 1280 x 720, or 720p, with quincunx anti-aliasing applied to smooth things over. That's compared to the Xbox 360 version, which runs natively at 720p, isn't being software upscaled, and employs 2x multisample anti-aliasing.

Consequently--and just as in GTA IV--the PS3 version of Red Dead Redemption looks notably murkier (though some might justifiably argue "smoother"), as if the world were overlaid with gaussian blur. It's noticeable immediately in the intro shot of the steamboat chugging into Blackwater port: Where the buildings, trees, mountains, and steamboat itself are crisply defined on the Xbox 360, they seem dimmer and slightly unfocused on the PS3, an effect that looks like interpolation to my eyes.

Analysis: Red Dead Redemption on PS3 vs. Xbox 360 - PCWorld

wat credible source did any of those 640p claiming wwebsite had?there was nothing more than the screenshots and comparision videos

there are no credible sources until they prove that its 640p,screenshot and video comparison doesn't make them credible.

and many sources have just followed up on the other claims.

Alright then where is your proof/ credible web links?

News: Red Dead Redemption sub-HD on PS3 - ComputerAndVideoGames.com

The above link mentions two people who used their own means to arrive at their the rendering resolution of 640 pixels. They could not determine the horizontal resolution which basically means that finding the rendering resolution is not as simple as buying a sub $200 capture device and checking the resolution reported by the device. Unlike them I am sure you have the horizontal resolution as well on your finger tips.

Agreed that they have not provided any solid proof along with their posts, but given by own observations from the comparison (which was enough to convince me PS3 version is not running at same resolution as 360 version) and the previous credibility of these people (as mentioned in the link), I am more inclined to believe them than some one who apparently does not seem to have has any idea of what AA does to an image or what kind of artifacts it fixes, does not provide any supporting proof or credible web link for this claims (that when even people like Galileo and Newton had to prove their points when they proposed something against general opinion and even when what they said was true) and argues on with a tinge of fanboyish fervor.

 

[xXx]

Face-Off: Red Dead Redemption - Page 1 | DigitalFoundry | Eurogamer.net

Digital Foundry does a good comparison of games....

 

[xXx]

Got the PS3 250 GB with UFC Undisputed Game...damn dat costed me 999 dhs....he bumped up the price....brand new piece wid One year Warranty

 

[brickhouse]

This would have been so much easier, if you could have given us one proof of the game running @720 on your "friends capture card". You may have a mobile phone with a camera, YES? Of course you would. Just record a small video or capture a pic displaying the resolution and frame rates, as you claim, then come back here. It's a small thing to ask, as I don't have any friend who has a HD capture card and since yours does, this would be a much easier task. Till then, I'll just sit back and enjoy; no offense.

its not a card,its more of a recorder device.what the hell do you mean by card?

i would try to get it when i visit him.

and it is as difficult for you as you haven't proved anything either

it was just that your last post just supported another user without any reasoning like just being blind

--- Updated Post - Automerged ---

Face-Off: Red Dead Redemption - Page 1 | DigitalFoundry | Eurogamer.net

Digital Foundry does a good comparison of games....

yeah EUROGAMER is pretty good but they still don't provide the full analysis

--- Updated Post - Automerged ---

Face-Off: Red Dead Redemption - Page 1 | DigitalFoundry | Eurogamer.net

Digital Foundry does a good comparison of games....

yeah,EUROGAMER is good but they still don't provide full analysis

--- Updated Post - Automerged ---

That's a pretty blanket statement to make. At high resolutions, with 2x AA you will not see much of an improvement since the pixels are so small that the Aliasing artifacts are not easily visible.

it depends upon your screen size whether you see the difference or not.

also if the game is jagged,being on higher resolution won't make it disapear.and Anti-aliasing will help alot there.you can see a big difference between a bad designed 720p and the same game with 2xAA

If you render a image at a lower resolution, apply AA and scale it to a higher resolution then also it will not look good.

yes but what if the game looks bad even on a 720p resolution,AA will help it improve there.

Some defects can become even more glaring after AA.

they can but mostly it helps and if it is applied correctly

AA in general addresses a particular kind of artifact called Aliasing that is noticeable is mainly at the edges of objects. It does not magically remove or minimize all sorts of defects nor is there any guarantee that you would like the result of AA.

yeah professor,now give a lecture as the other person doesn't know anything

i know what Anti-Aliaing does.but you are talking as if it wouldn't make any difference even if it wasn't applied then what the hell do you think so many games apply it.

and just because a game is 720p doesn't mean it will not need AA,it needs it many times.

i have a 40'TV,i can tell the difference

Applying AA can improve and worsen the image quality depending on the conditions and how the AA is applied.

but what does it do here,it only helps

For your info, both GTA4 and RDR do have AA on PS3. Its a different sort of AA called Quincunx AA that is only available in nVidia GPU's. This AA basically works like a smoothing filter.

and for you info just AA for nvidia won't work as CELL on PS3 too does graphic processing

so just RSX AA won't alone do the work

While MSAA also adds extra pixels to the edges to make the jaggies less apparent, it still retains the sharp boundaries of the object. Quincunx brings a somewhat different sort of smoothing.

again just doing AA on RSX alone doesn't work as CELL takes the load too so it doesn't pan out very well

and the AA doesn't work on PS3 that well,everybody knows that

MSAA does alot.

its better to make high res games for PS3 than making low res and then using AA which works well with 360

Upscaling + Quincunx AA leads to the blurry washed out look that you get in the PS3 version of GTA4 and the same is evident in RDR PS3 version as well.

PS3 has always had that a bit light contolled dark and blur feel on all its games.you are just balming the upscaling for it

Its not essentially a bad thing either as there are people who like the PS3 look compared to the 360 one.

it is not the point whether its bad or good.you are yourself confused why we are debating this.it not because its good or bad but because the fact that everybody assumes once the rumour spreads

Care to point out where I said I deduced the exact resolution just by looking at comparisons? I only remember saying that It was evident to me that both games are not running at the same resolution and there is some upscaling and blurring happening in PS3 version.

why are you directly blaming the res for the blurr.i have followed the CELL and the RSX since its unvieling.PS3 games are always light controlled and a bit blurred.

man GT5 with 1080p has blurr,doesn't mean that its 640p or any low res.it was the effect added from the start to control the light effects and emphasis on the beauty

GTA4 comes into the picture because it uses the same engine and had the same kind of implementation.

same engine doesn't always mean it will have the same properties all the time.many games are built with same engine but evolve as the generation evolves

a perfect example the upgradation made from Uncharted to Uncharted 2.i am not talking resolution but the overall beauty and effects improved on in the 2nd game.

same for GT5 PROLOGUE,it was 1280x1080 in game & 1440x1080 in replays

now GT5 with same engine will do 1080p and 3D

Even without looking at a comparison video, the effect of scaling and blurring was evident in GTA4. So what do you deduce when you see the same kind of effect in RDR?

alot of things can be thought of

and anyways 360 was the lead platform so even if they were at same resolution,360 would win

You cannot deduce the exact resolution but, but its quite possible to understand what was caused by lack of AA and what was caused by some other reason if you understand what AA does to the image. I did not know from the video that the game was running at 640p, but its definitely evident to me that its not exactly running at the same resolution as the 360 version.

you can also understand that being the lead platform has alot of benefits

[/QUOTE]Here is an unscientific analysis (as he calls it) made by another guy

Analysis: Red Dead Redemption on PS3 vs. Xbox 360 - PCWorld[/QUOTE]

are you ****ing kidding???????????????????????????????

from what side was that an analysis,that was just a simple article,and in the article itself they mention that "Some believe its 640"...............................lmao

that is no proof

Alright then where is your proof/ credible web links?

i don't think your link was credible enough though

News: Red Dead Redemption sub-HD on PS3 - ComputerAndVideoGames.com

The above link mentions two people who used their own means to arrive at their the rendering resolution of 640 pixels. They could not determine the horizontal resolution which basically means that finding the rendering resolution is not as simple as buying a sub $200 capture device and checking the resolution reported by the device. Unlike them I am sure you have the horizontal resolution as well on your finger tips.

yeah those two people didn't provide any proof,things like these keep happening.

last year there was one site which was reviewing all games 50-60range out of 100 just to get hits to gain from ad revenue.

Agreed that they have not provided any solid proof along with their posts, but given by own observations from the comparison (which was enough to convince me PS3 version is not running at same resolution as 360 version)

how the hell can just by your observations say that its a lower res as 360 2xAA could fool you into thinking it is with the smoother things

and the previous credibility of these people (as mentioned in the link),

previous credibility.....................lol

don't even discuss this topic.there is not much credibility when you are running a site and want hits

for example the biggest gaming site IGN and Gamespot gave GTA4 a 100/100 when it wasn't anywhere near that score.it was because of the money feeding.

you know when Kane & Lynch released,they had done a major ad campaign on Gamespot and spent loads of money on the site.near the games release the publisher wanted gamespot to give the game a good score because of their money spending and gamespot agreed to do so and told their reviewer to do so too.now the game wasn't good so the reviewer didn't want to cheat the gamers so he gave a low score and was fired as Gamespot had gotten money for it and still gave it a low score.

there are many many other stories,

I am more inclined to believe them than some one who apparently does not seem to have has any idea of what AA does to an image or what kind of artifacts it fixes, does not provide any supporting proof or credible web link for this claims (that when even people like Galileo and Newton had to prove their points when they proposed something against general opinion and even when what they said was true)

you talk of Newton,its very funny when you yourself haven't provided any proof than just some speculating articles which every site posts on their site one the rumour spreads.

and how you believed them just shows how a big Newton and Galileo you are that you believe anything

and about the AA,you might want to understand it first then questioning other.

and argues on with a tinge of fanboyish fervor.

i don't know how the hell was it fanboyish fervour.

actually you might be fanboyish yourself as you yourself above was trying to be goody goody above so that people don't find out who you really are................hehe

"Its not essentially a bad thing either as there are people who like the PS3 look compared to the 360 one."----being goody goody

 

[xXx]

....chuck it...too much to read it....

Change the Thread title to....

READ DEAD REDEMPTION

 

[Ethan_Hunt]

its not a card,its more of a recorder device.what the hell do you mean by card?

i would try to get it when i visit him.

and it is as difficult for you as you haven't proved anything either

it was just that your last post just supported another user without any reasoning like just being blind

You just don't get it, do you? I quoted Lord Nemesis's statement because it pretty much summed up how I felt about this gibberish argument that you want to carry on. The Eurogamer article the xXx posted does a perfect dissection of the both the versions and yet somehow for you it's not "full analysis". What do you even mean by that? We are all collectively providing you link after link of each site doing their own comparison of the game's resolution being low on PS3, but you just can't seem to cough up one simple proof with which you could prove those sites wrong. Also a capture card is a physical device with which a lot of people capture/record videos off gaming consoles and even television broadcasts. Why don't you just ask that friend to record a video of it being played on the PS3 with all the details and upload it for you? That would save your trip to his place, save our time & prove you're right, simple.

 

[brickhouse]

You just don't get it, do you? I quoted Lord Nemesis's statement because it pretty much summed up how I felt about this gibberish argument that you want to carry on.

how the hell did it sum up the debate.thats what i am asking.you just blindly went with his comment when i didn't sum up anything

The Eurogamer article the xXx posted does a perfect dissection of the both the versions and yet somehow for you it's not "full analysis". What do you even mean by that?

the eurogamer article didn't do any disection on the topic of resolution that we were discussing.

by full analysis i meant that the article didn't prove anything more than the framerate,how stable the game is,etc.but it didn't prove anything about the resolution

We are all collectively providing you link after link of each site doing their own comparison of the game's resolution being low on PS3,

just collectively providing link after link of of comparision doesn't prove that the PS3 resolution is lower.

you just don't understand a thing about the discussion.the comparision video just showed them sisde by side nothing else,they didn't prove anything near PS3 version being lower resolution.yes the 360 version was looking better but that can be because of alot of things like the extra AA and 360 being the lead platform but you just don't understand that.you just say because the 360 version is looking better its resolution will be lower

but you just can't seem to cough up one simple proof with which you could prove those sites wrong. Also a capture card is a physical device with which a lot of people capture/record videos off gaming consoles and even television broadcasts.

i will when i visit him next time.what do you think people are just sitting around and will go 10 miles away to his friends home to just prove something.

and the argument isn't there as you haven't provided any proof either.all games websites have rumors on their sites all the time,that doesn't make then to be true.you are again just blindly believing them

Why don't you just ask that friend to record a video of it being played on the PS3 with all the details and upload it for you? That would save your trip to his place, save our time & prove you're right, simple.

i will have to go to his house cause he has the 360 version not the PS3 version that i have.

 

[Gannu]

if thats the case go fcuk yourself.

Watch your words knucklehead! You don't own this forum so stop using expletives all around.

 

[Ethan_Hunt]

Watch your words knucklehead! You don't own this forum so stop using expletives all around.

No it's OK. I purposely wanted to work him up. You can see how angry he gets when I repeatedly ask him for proof, which means a.) There is no proof OR b.) There is no friend.

@Solid_Snake4RD: Tell you what, since your "friend" has the X360, ask him to capture a video of any game running with his recorder (with all the frame rate and resolution being displayed) and then upload it on YouTube. That would buy you some time and let us know that this friend of yours is at least real and not fictional.

 

[xXx]

Image Quality and Framebuffer Analysis for Available Games *Read the first post* - Page 39 - Beyond3D Forum - Thread Link

Also the user's reputation is extremely high on checking the resolutions for Games on Console. This is what he said for RDR on PS3 - Beyond3D Forum - View Single Post - Image Quality and Framebuffer Analysis for Available Games *Read the first post* >> you can click above for whole thread discussion.

This is where it was reported - Pixel Counter Claims Red Dead Redemption Runs Higher Res on 360

The user of this forum has explained in a very detailed way - RedDeadFans.com Red Dead Redemption Forum Fansite Join the Red Dead Revolution! - View topic - [Visuals in-depth] Scaling/AA issue; consoles generally.

:thumb:

http://www.lensoftruth.com/?p=19855

Another Site which does good n is trusted

:thumb:

 

[brickhouse]

Watch your words knucklehead! You don't own this forum so stop using expletives all around.

i didn't say that and the way you are are saying it shows you that you think of it as ur own

--- Updated Post - Automerged ---

No it's OK. I purposely wanted to work him up. You can see how angry he gets when I repeatedly ask him for proof, which means a.) There is no proof OR b.) There is no friend.

wow,so mature.

leave my proof out of the window for a sec and think about what you have presented till now

@Solid_Snake4RD: Tell you what, since your "friend" has the X360, ask him to capture a video of any game running with his recorder (with all the frame rate and resolution being displayed) and then upload it on YouTube. That would buy you some time and let us know that this friend of yours is at least real and not fictional.

again you are really stupid if you think everybody is just sitting here to prove to you.

"oh to buy some time,tell your friend to record a 360 game and put up on youtube"...........................lol

--- Updated Post - Automerged ---

Image Quality and Framebuffer Analysis for Available Games *Read the first post* - Page 39 - Beyond3D Forum - Thread Link

Also the user's reputation is extremely high on checking the resolutions for Games on Console. This is what he said for RDR on PS3 - Beyond3D Forum - View Single Post - Image Quality and Framebuffer Analysis for Available Games *Read the first post* >> you can click above for whole thread discussion.

This is where it was reported - Pixel Counter Claims Red Dead Redemption Runs Higher Res on 360

The user of this forum has explained in a very detailed way - RedDeadFans.com Red Dead Redemption Forum Fansite Join the Red Dead Revolution! - View topic - [Visuals in-depth] Scaling/AA issue; consoles generally.

:thumb:

Lens of Truth

Another Site which does good n is trusted

:thumb:

again site's trust doesn't prove it till they detail the stuff.big sites have faulted in the past so just because a site is trusted doesn't mean they will always report truth

 

[Ethan_Hunt]

wow,so mature.

leave my proof out of the window for a sec and think about what you have presented till now

I trust those sites. Hence we all are posting those links as proof, if that's not good enough for you, then I could care less. They have at least done some analysis. Whereas you just seem to be ranting without having anything to back it up with. I bet you haven't even looked at those links posted above. The one that xXx posted right above you is user based frame buffer captures and not random sites being quoted upon. Yet you choose to blindly ignore those links and carry on with your rambling. I'm pretty sure that you wouldn't even believe if tomorrow one of those sites would quote a Rockstar spokesperson stating that PS3 version runs at 640p. Heck, you wouldn't even realise it if the truth bit you in the arse.

again you are really stupid if you think everybody is just sitting here to prove to you.

"oh to buy some time,tell your friend to record a 360 game and put up on youtube"...........................lol

WOW! I was under the impression that if you "have" proof then you should be able to show it. If I was questioned for presenting proof and if I know that I have it, I would make sure I present it before even initiating the conversation. That's the whole point of a discussion. You are the only one who thinks that those links are not credible and sites are not trusted, then why don't you prove them wrong. Don't ever dare calling me stupid. If you think you can't get your sorry ass off to prove your point, then go crawl back into the same hole where you came from.

again site's trust doesn't prove it till they detail the stuff.big sites have faulted in the past so just because a site is trusted doesn't mean they will always report truth

Oh yeah! I forgot, his almighty is the only one who can be trusted on WWW. Without your attesting and verification, one shouldn't believe any other thing. Did you even bother looking into those discussions? Just because some sites have landed up in their own fiasco, doesn't mean every site should take the fall for it. It's your word against a hundreds of other users. So NO, your word means shit unless you have some proof.

 

[ronnie_gogs]

Why is everyone arguing with this Troll ....

The more u guys argue the more he will feed on it....

 

[brickhouse]

I trust those sites. Hence we all are posting those links as proof, if that's not good enough for you, then I could care less.

how many times do i have to tell you that just because you trust those sites doesn't make it a proof.

and if you could care less then why even reply to me.

many people blinding believe alot of things but that doesn't make it to be true

They have at least done some analysis.

so are you telling me they did an analysis on something so they would be right about the other thing,you are at the height of nonsense

Whereas you just seem to be ranting without having anything to back it up with.

i wasn't ranting,it is people like you who think that when a person disagrees with you,he is ranting........lol

i am not saying i don't believe you,it is just that you are saying that you are telling the truth even if the proof isn't there and the other is just telling shit.

I bet you haven't even looked at those links posted above. The one that xXx posted right above you is user based frame buffer captures and not random sites being quoted upon.

of just because i didn't agree so i didn't chk the links,WOW

Yet you choose to blindly ignore those links and carry on with your rambling.

oh so have camera's inside my house like the ones SANTA installs to keep watch on children

[/QUOTE]I'm pretty sure that you wouldn't even believe if tomorrow one of those sites would quote a Rockstar spokesperson stating that PS3 version runs at 640p. Heck, you wouldn't even realise it if the truth bit you in the arse.

wow,now read personalities

and how pretty sure your are about what other do...........hehe

WOW! I was under the impression that if you "have" proof then you should be able to show it. If I was questioned for presenting proof and if I know that I have it, I would make sure I present it before even initiating the conversation.

so just starting a conversation needs proof............................lmao

so great rules,grandpa

That's the whole point of a discussion. You are the only one who thinks that those links are not credible and sites are not trusted

again are you telling me just because everybody just blindly believes a thing,it is true

so those people who claimed iPHONE was the best phone were........rofl

then why don't you prove them wrong. Don't ever dare calling me stupid.

i will when i have time but am not gonna change my schedule to go to my friends house to prove to you.

and i call you stupid again, do you even know the meaning of dare???

what the hell will happen by saying "don't ever dare calling me stupid"?

If you think you can't get your sorry ass off to prove your point, then go crawl back into the same hole where you came from.

are you in school?

just hear urself talk,its hilarious

if you can't get your sorry ass off and change your schedule and make it your sole aim in life to prove a point on a forum then you can go back in the same hole you came from..............lol

Oh yeah! I forgot, his almighty is the only one who can be trusted on WWW. Without your attesting and verification, one shouldn't believe any other thing.

nah i didn't say you shouldn't believe the other person,just don't believe it when they haven't provided any proof.do you just don't understand what other people say or can't think on your own,that you misinterpret other words all the time and believe anything blindly and then just post their statement or link to articles which don't prove anything as your proof cause you have been doing that till now

Did you even bother looking into those discussions? Just because some sites have landed up in their own fiasco, doesn't mean every site should take the fall for it.

didn't say that but normally when a big rumour spreads then all sites just copy it.

and is big sites like IGN,gamespot,and other big sites can post shit to gain hits.so can other small sites

It's your word against a hundreds of other users. So NO, your word means shit unless you have some proof.

you are again behaving like a sheep who just gets on the bandwagon just because everyone does

oh the Wii and apple products are so cool,they are the best thing ever

 

[Ethan_Hunt]

i will when i have time but am not gonna change my schedule to go to my friends house to prove to you.

PM me when that happens, I'll be waiting.

 

[brickhouse]

PM me when that happens, I'll be waiting.

nah i will post it here.

you said you weren't you care less and expect other to change their schedule for you,well i'm not so you will have to follow

 

[Ethan_Hunt]

nah i will post it here.

you said you weren't you care less and expect other to change their schedule for you,well i'm not so you will have to follow

Whatever floats your boat!

 

[brickhouse]

Whatever floats your boat!

yeah don't really matter to me who cares less so i don't have to prove to anybody specifically

 

[Ethan_Hunt]

In other news:

Red Dead Redemption to get four new DLC packs (also: zombies)

Starved for more Red Dead Redemption content? Rockstar just announced four new DLC packs for Xbox Live and PlayStation Network, with the first one -- dubbed "Legends and Killers" -- due in August for $10. You can expect new characters, weapons and active map locations (for both freeroaming and competitive multiplayer modes) to be added to New Austin over the coming months. Also ... zombies.

Mosey on past the break for the full rundown.

Legends and Killers -- August 2010 (800 MS Points / $9.99)

* Nine new multiplayer map locations
* Eight new multiplayer characters, including some from Red Dead Revolver
* New projectile weapon, The Tomahawk, with corresponding multiplayer and single-player challenges
* New Achievements and Trophies

Liars and Cheats -- Launch date TBD (800 MS Points / $9.99)

* Attack and Defend multiplayer competitive mode and challenges
* New multiplayer horse races, with mounted combat
* Play as "the heroes and villains" of Red Dead Redemption, as well as eight new multiplayer characters
* Multiplayer versions of Liar's Dice and Poker from the single-player game
* New weapon, The Explosive Rifle, with corresponding multiplayer and single-player challenges
* New Achievements and Trophies

Free Roam -- Launch date TBD (Price TBD)

* Additional Free Roam challenges
* New action areas and defensive placements
* Posse scoring and leaderboards
* New anti-griefing measures in Free Roam

Undead Nightmare -- Launch date TBD (800 MS Points / $9.99)

* New single-player adventure, challenges and quests
* Eight new multiplayer zombie characters
* Additional animals to hunt
* New dynamic events "and more"

Source: Joystiq