Red Dead Redemption coming to PS Now on PC

Red Dead Redemption [official site] is coming ot PC! Sort of. Rockstar’s cowboy adventure is considered by many to be their finest work, but it’s also their only game not to mosey into our town after its console release. Now that’s changing thanks to the game’s arrival on the PlayStation Now game streaming service on December 6th.

For a monthly subscription fee, PlayStation Now lets you stream and play a library of PlayStation 3 games to your PlayStation 4 and, as of a few months ago, PC. There are 400+ games available on the service for £12.99/$19.99 per month and it works pretty well as long as you have a good broadband internet connection. And as long as you live in the US, UK, Netherlands or Belgium, since those are the only four countries it’s currently available in.

If you’re not familiar with it, Red Dead Redemption is an open world in the same vein as Grand Theft Auto, but set in the old west rather than a modern day city. That means you’ll spend your time riding from ramshackle town to ramshackle town on horseback, helping the usual Rockstar cast of despicable criminal assholes to hold up trains, rob graves, sell phony medicines to unwitting victims, etc. It has a fabulous atmosphere, great world design, excellent lighting, compelling gunplay and much else to recommend it, though I hated the story and every person in it. As always.

We previously offered our suggestions for the 10 best PlayStation Now games, which included The Last Of Us, Uncharted 2, Ico, Journey, God of War 2 and more. We’ll probably have to update the list now to put Red Dead Redemption on there.


  1. GenBanks says:

    I bought a PS3 a few years ago just to play RDR… Was totally worth it. I’d happily pay the price of a new game for a proper PC release though… I assume PS now requires you to play with a controller?

    • Boomerang says:

      I believe you need a PS4 or PS3 controller. You can also use a third party controller that supports xinput (so a 360 controller, which many of us will have, should work too. Not sure myself though).

      link to

    • dongsweep says:

      Would like an answer to this too. That is my assumption, though.

      I played it back on the PS3 and loved it but could not help but wish for a day when I could play it properly with a M+KB.

    • Dritz says:

      It does require a controller. You can use a third party one (I was using an Xbox 360 controller with the trial), but if it’s not a Sixaxis controller with accelerometers, some games will be unplayable or have features you can’t interact with.

    • ulix says:

      If you bought a console just for RDR, it should have been an Xbox360. It’s the technically superior version, running at native 720p. The PS3 version is blurry as shit in comparison.

      link to

      • Premium User Badge

        phuzz says:

        Not just trying to fight the console wars on a PC gaming website, but arguing about the previous generation of consoles.
        I’m almost impressed.

        (In fairness, I will never stop fighting the Amiga 500 vs Atari ST wars, Amiga forever!)

        • Rince says:

          Atari 2600 master race! That was a console, not like that colecovision.

        • Simplex says:

          He’s right, though – X360 version was much better: higher framerate, more details, less blurry.

        • Asbad says:

          Maybe you’re baiting, but it does seem odd to paint this just as a regular argument about consoles. There were specific games that performed better or worse depending on the console, that says nothing about the merits of either console.

      • Raoul Duke says:

        Plus that way you could own something that sounds like a helicopter taking off, can’t play blu rays, has a power brick the size and weight of an actual brick, and generally is just a bad PC crammed into an ugly case!

        To be honest, they both look terrible compared to comparable generation PC games. And the game was perfectly playable, and enjoyable, on PS3.

  2. thegooseking says:

    RDR was great! But it’s getting a bit old now, and other games that have been influenced by it (e.g. Assassin’s Creed 3, The Witcher 3) have, in some respects, surpassed it.

    That said, the Old West is still inexplicably underserved as a setting, and the quieter moments where RDR really shines aren’t something you see often, so there is still something to recommend it.

  3. Curled Woofy says:

    I just don’t understand their rationale for not bringing it to PC properly. It would be a guaranteed success and they have enough experience converting games from the GTAs, which aren’t perfect on PC but fine enough. They should at least revamp it for PS4.

    • TheGamerDad says:

      Supposedly, the code is so bad that “fixing” it to bring it to PC is not considered to be worth it. I disagree. There is very clear demand for it and I firmly believe that Rockstar would easily get their money back for it, especially with the new hype for RDR2. I would glad pay for a PC version. I’d love to see it in stereoscopic 3D, too.

      • Curled Woofy says:

        Yes! Apart from the 3D bit. ;)

      • Mokinokaro says:

        The code is apparently so bad they’d have to remake the engine from scratch to do any sort of PC or next gen port.

        It’d be awesome to see a PC release, but I think it won’t happen for a console generation or two, especially since PS Now and the Xbox One backwards compatibility mean less incentive on the console side to do it.

      • fish99 says:

        That always sounded more like an excuse than the real reason to me. The game is already on 2 very different OSs, so it’s not like it has loads of OS specific hacks to make it run, and also one of those environments is DirectX9 based. Also it’s the same engine as GTA4 which did get a PC port, so the work is already mostly done.

        And are they really saying their programmers are that sloppy?

        • Mokinokaro says:

          Considering the game is chock full of bizarre bugs, yes.

        • pseudoart says:

          Just because GTA got a port doesn’t mean it’s a breeze to port RDR – they may share an engine, but considering how long and how arduous the development of RDR was (6 years), it’s no walk in the park. I’m surprised people still expect a port with the history of the game. RDR’s development was hell, and there’a probably not a lot of the original crew left. They’ve probably tried outsourcing the port and found that the return versus the cost wasn’t worth it.

          • fish99 says:

            You don’t need to recode the whole game to port it though, since the xbox360 version is already DirectX9. The game logic can remain a mess and the bugs can all stay. Probably the hardest thing would be supporting the mouse, but they already have a studio (Rockstar Leeds) that’s dedicated to making PC versions of their games.

        • pseudoart says:

          While it is directx 9, yes, that still doesn’t help much. Xbox and ps3 is just one resolution and the code is optimized for each of those two platforms and the idiosyncrasies of them. Add PC to the mix and every single computer is like a different platform in itself. Textures, model detail, UI, post effects needs to be able to run on multiple resolutions. And that’s just talking about the graphics. Then there’s actual game code. Threading, memory etc etc. It’s not easy to port a game that essentially wasn’t prepared to be ported. Just see how rocksteady has had problems with Batman. I firmly believe rockstar decided to focus on RDR 2 and GTA instead of spending a lot of money and effort on rewriting RDR to work on PC with very little chance of making money. They probably looked at how GTA4 did – the PC port was less than impressive for a long time.

        • GenialityOfEvil says:

          The Xbox 360 and PS3 have completely different types of processors to PCs, with completely different instruction sets. Being DirectX provides almost nothing to the porting process since their engine supports OpenGL (which the PS3s OS has a version of) and DirectX anyway. The problem was the huge stability problems that version of the engine had anyway, see GTA 4.

          • fish99 says:

            The PS3 also has a completely different processor to the xbox360 and that didn’t stop them both getting a version. And the processor is abstracted by the programming language and libraries to the point where it’s not an issue for the coders. It’s not like they’re coding in assembly.

            I just don’t buy it. I think it was entirely about money and poor sales of GTA4 on PC and they didn’t want to admit it.

    • davebo says:

      As others said, it’s the code. But even if the code itself is garbage, I wonder if the assets would be easy to just load into GTA5’s engine. I’d pay $10 on Steam just to ride around the gameworld on my current PC and maybe shoot cougars and npc’s, even with zero story elements coded in.

  4. Solidstate89 says:

    I might be wrong, but I’m pretty sure if you own the digital game for the Xbox One, you can stream it to your Windows 10 PC as well. No subscription required.

    • waltC says:

      I really don’t get the whole “streaming game” scenario. Just seems like a way to try and make money from PC owners without actually giving them an actual PC-centric product. If they can port their earlier games to PS4skin/xBone, porting it to PC Windows should be no great leap in either expense or time, imo.

      • Solidstate89 says:

        I don’t actually believe the game was ever ported to the Xbox One – I think it was MS who did the work at the OS level to allow emulation and backwards compatability.

    • GenialityOfEvil says:

      Xbox required though.

    • Simplex says:

      That’s pointless – you’d have even higher input lag and compression artifacts. It’s much better to play on Xbox One, since you need it anyway in order to be able to stream.

    • consolitis says:

      Why would you want to “stream” it though a PC if you have an Xbone? Surely they’re already using the same screen/projector via HDMI cables?

  5. fish99 says:

    I guess this is good for the people without a console that will run RDR, but the reason I wanted it on PC was to aim with a mouse and run it at higher settings/framerate. It’s been so long now that I honestly don’t care anymore though.

    • keefybabe says:

      I’d still buy the heck out of an HD remake. The problem with HarDeHar on the last generation consoles is it feels like playing lego the resolution is so pants.

  6. Carra says:

    “And as long as you live in the US, UK, Netherlands or Belgium”.

    As a Belgian it feels weird to be among the first to get something. We’re usually the last country to get these sort of things.

    • Milincho says:

      I think Spain & Portugal usually are.

    • DelrueOfDetroit says:

      Probably because everyone is too busy drinking your delicious beer.

    • Joriath says:

      That was my first thought as well. If only I had the money and a PS3/4 controller I’d be quite tempted by this, just to celebrate Belgium being ahead of the game for once.

  7. Antongranis says:

    I actually consider this game quite overrated. The world is empty, a sharp contrast to GTAs cities, and you spend most of your time holding A while your horse follows the road. Its not bad by any means, just not as good as some people say in my opinion.

    • UncleLou says:

      That the game allows its landscape to breathe is one of its greatest strengths. If anything, it is still too full. It oozes more atmosphere than all GTAs combined.

      We need more games like RDR and Stalker, and fewer icon-hunt games. Far Cry 4 with was absolutley destroyed by feeling like a crowded theme park instead of a real place.

      • cpt_freakout says:

        Completely agreed here – the emptiness of the world is one of the game’s strengths, and it is used greatly when you gain access to the city and see just how the so-called wilderness of the west is just the promise of colonizing it, of filling it up and thus completely erasing it.

        GTA is entertaining and whatnot, but RDR often takes little poetic turns like those, making it different, and IMO, better.

    • consolitis says:

      Empty?? Apparently you’ve never played it. If anything it wasn’t empty enough… stand still for five seconds, spin the camera around 180 degrees and watch how “empty” the gameworld is with cougars, bandits, snakes, bears etc. suddenly spawning out of nowhere behind you (and if you’re playing the Undead Nightmare DLC exchange all that for some kind of zombie). We were literally forced to be constantly shooting at something which is both a cheap way to add filler for casuals and immersion breaking for the rest of us. The game was at its best when you could simply travel around alone, turn the in-game music to zero and put on some classic scores by Morricone, Bakalov, Nicolai, Alessandroni, etc. on your ipod and soak in the atmosphere listening to some epic music. Other than of course, when Jose Gonzales’ So Far Away came on. Truly a masterpiece moment of game music used to full effect.

    • fray_bentos says:

      I agree with you. I played this game for 4-5 hours before becoming, quite frankly, bored. The gameplay, story, and Wild West theme was not enough to excite me. I’ll add that I also do not like the GTA games.

  8. Milincho says:

    So… the same PS3 shitty performance of the original but worse IQ, more lag, always online and restricted to 4 countries… great news!

    Buying a second hand PS3 is a much better way to play it.

  9. Jane Doe says:

    Console streaming to PC? Don’t make me laugh.

    Seems like the next logical step for bad console ports though.

    • Cronstintein says:

      You’re not streaming from the console, but from the playstation network. Probably need some decent internet for it to not be terrible but there’s a free trial so you can test it out.

      • Optimaximal says:

        The game is emulated at Sony’s end of the connection on custom hardware.

        • giobox says:

          There’s actually zero PS3 emulation involved. Insanely, the game runs in a server farm filled with custom rack mounted PS3s, the HDMI out of which is streamed to you. The rack mounted units effectively contain 8 PS3s each, Sony are ridiculously maintaining a 1:1 ratio of server farmed PS3 CPUs to users. Its a shame Sony haven’t release more technical information on how this is being accomplished, but given they can’t use the old VPS trick of over-provisioning it must be several giant data centres.

          Source: link to

  10. calicope says:

    Not a big fan of PS Now, but it’s cool to have the option!

    And a minor correction, PS Now is also available in Canada!

  11. thebigJ_A says:

    I tried PS Now because I’d always wanted to try The Last of Us.
    Doesn’t work.
    Or, it does but with at least a solid half second of lag, which just made me queasy.
    And I’m in Boston with very good cable internet.
    There’s no way this would be enjoyable to play.

    I’d have a better time finding the old 360 somewhere in my basement. Just having it sort-of-but-not-really playable on PC isn’t the point.

    • inspiredhandle says:

      As soon as I read “I’m in Boston” I read the rest of your comment (in my head) in a terribly impersonated Boston(ese?) accent. I am aware you’d have no way of knowing this without my admitting to it, but I would still like to apologise for my actions (thoughts?).

      P.S. PS now sucks balls. Tried it through PS4, it was just as you testified.

      • thebigJ_A says:

        And the accent is in full force with me
        It’s not your fault it’s a bad one. (5% of the time in movies, it’s horrible. They can’t get it right. They sound like Kennedys or something)

    • ZedClampet says:

      Works great for me with no noticeable input lag or graphical problems. Of course, I’ve got a great Internet connection and a new modem/router.

  12. racccoon says:

    I stare at my PS3 rusting away everyday with my Red Dead Redemption cd still in it. Its what I bought the dam thing for because of ROCKSTAR PC STUBBORN’US !!
    So, to play a stream from the PS3 is not my idea of playing any game on my PC! as its not playing on the PC its just paying more for something you already have! along with no real great abilities that the PC has.
    If isn’t built for the PC!
    It can just stay rusting away in its crappy cubby hole.

  13. GGiyo says:

    “-helping the usual Rockstar cast of despicable criminal assholes to hold up trains”
    You sure you played this game? John Marston isn’t exactly the usual despicable criminal asshole in it. More like a former despicable criminal asshole trying to change his ways. I don’t remember robbing trains. More like defending it.

  14. Rince says:

    Not really interested in PS Now. My Internet connection is… well, have good days and bad days. And anyways, even with a good one, streaming games doesn’t sound that good.

    Hopefully they will not do the same mistake again and bring RRD2 to PC, eventually. Or the first one. Or both.

  15. inspiredhandle says:

    This isn’t good news. Had we not had PS now to stream an awful methadone stand in for a full PC release, we might have collectively had the will to convince Rockstar that it would be worth their while. Now all we can do is wait, hope and pray that RDR2 is made a PC release.

    • consolitis says:

      I don’t have PS Now, presumably you don’t have it, and everyone I’ve spoken to about it hates it. So if nobody’s signing up…

  16. jonahcutter says:

    The PS3 version looks really poor. I love the gameplay, atmosphere and story, but it’s distractingly bad-looking.