How do I downgrade to 1.0? (Bought the R* Launcher version after Epic Exclusive expired)

[Null]

I want to see how the game was before the patches in its originally intended glory. However, when I bought the game, it was more expensive on Steam than the R* Launcher.

Every guide I see requires the game to be the Steam version, but my early adopter choice for the PC release may have slapped me in the face. But I am in no monetary place to buy the same game twice, nor do I find it morally or ethically reasonable to expect one to.

Is there still a way I can do this? I don't care about online mode at all.

[ScareCrow]

I dont think its possible because even the boxed version requires Steam i think and Steam does upgrade the game automaticly i dont think it can be done

[Femboy Thighs]

I think through beta options you can

[🦝𝓟𝓗𝓘𝓛𝓛🦝]

Originally posted by Null:

I want to see how the game was before the patches in its originally intended glory. However, when I bought the game, it was more expensive on Steam than the R* Launcher.

Every guide I see requires the game to be the Steam version, but my early adopter choice for the PC release may have slapped me in the face. But I am in no monetary place to buy the same game twice, nor do I find it morally or ethically reasonable to expect one to.

Is there still a way I can do this? I don't care about online mode at all.

why would you want to downgrade it, 1.0 is a bad version cuz its release day with a bunch of bugs prolly, like dont even bother tbh

[Null]

Originally posted by PhillModder:

Originally posted by Null:

I want to see how the game was before the patches in its originally intended glory. However, when I bought the game, it was more expensive on Steam than the R* Launcher.

Every guide I see requires the game to be the Steam version, but my early adopter choice for the PC release may have slapped me in the face. But I am in no monetary place to buy the same game twice, nor do I find it morally or ethically reasonable to expect one to.

Is there still a way I can do this? I don't care about online mode at all.

why would you want to downgrade it, 1.0 is a bad version cuz its release day with a bunch of bugs prolly, like dont even bother tbh

Because it's Rockstar we're talking about, who makes every game of theirs worse/more inconsistent the more they patch it.

1. John Marston is using his own epilogue body/face model instead of Arthur's with the wrong colored hair/messed up eyes.

2. Minimal lighting/texture compromises - may be more taxing on performance, but no mismatches

3. The game is years old by this point. Can you blame a guy for wanting something slightly different than replaying the same story missions over and over? Looking how the same game changed overtime used to be every gamer's dream.

There more reasons, but you're better off researching the differences yourself.

There's nothing wrong for fiddling with a game you own. Especially since it's Rockstar we're talking about, where the only polished versions of San Andreas are the PS2/XBOX version and the non-digital 1.0 PC disc release. The more Rockstar patches, the more they break. That's a fact you cannot deny.

Fiddling with your files used to be half of what the gaming community was interested in. Sorry if anything here sounds accidentally offensive. I guess I'm just from a different era who doesn't understand the types that just 'play it how it's served.' I have no beef with you.

[🦝𝓟𝓗𝓘𝓛𝓛🦝]

Originally posted by Null:

Originally posted by PhillModder:

why would you want to downgrade it, 1.0 is a bad version cuz its release day with a bunch of bugs prolly, like dont even bother tbh

Because it's Rockstar we're talking about, who makes every game of theirs worse/more inconsistent the more they patch it.

1. John Marston is using his own epilogue body/face model instead of Arthur's with the wrong colored hair/messed up eyes.

2. Minimal lighting/texture compromises - may be more taxing on performance, but no mismatches

3. The game is years old by this point. Can you blame a guy for wanting something slightly different than replaying the same story missions over and over? Looking how the same game changed overtime used to be every gamer's dream.

There more reasons, but you're better off researching the differences yourself.

There's nothing wrong for fiddling with a game you own. Especially since it's Rockstar we're talking about, where the only polished versions of San Andreas are the PS2/XBOX version and the non-digital 1.0 PC disc release. The more Rockstar patches, the more they break. That's a fact you cannot deny.

Fiddling with your files used to be half of what the gaming community was interested in. Sorry if anything here sounds accidentally offensive. I guess I'm just from a different era who doesn't understand the types that just 'play it how it's served.' I have no beef with you.

I mean you could just mod the game if you want it to be different, also what's wrong with john marston? People seem srsly upset about it for no reason at all lol

[Null]

Originally posted by PhillModder:

Originally posted by Null:

Because it's Rockstar we're talking about, who makes every game of theirs worse/more inconsistent the more they patch it.

1. John Marston is using his own epilogue body/face model instead of Arthur's with the wrong colored hair/messed up eyes.

2. Minimal lighting/texture compromises - may be more taxing on performance, but no mismatches

3. The game is years old by this point. Can you blame a guy for wanting something slightly different than replaying the same story missions over and over? Looking how the same game changed overtime used to be every gamer's dream.

There more reasons, but you're better off researching the differences yourself.

There's nothing wrong for fiddling with a game you own. Especially since it's Rockstar we're talking about, where the only polished versions of San Andreas are the PS2/XBOX version and the non-digital 1.0 PC disc release. The more Rockstar patches, the more they break. That's a fact you cannot deny.

Fiddling with your files used to be half of what the gaming community was interested in. Sorry if anything here sounds accidentally offensive. I guess I'm just from a different era who doesn't understand the types that just 'play it how it's served.' I have no beef with you.

I mean you could just mod the game if you want it to be different, also what's wrong with john marston? People seem srsly upset about it for no reason at all lol

https://www.polygon.com/2020/6/4/21280437/red-dead-redemption-2-john-marston-changes-patches-update-rockstar

Skip the reading and look at the pictures. Marston is fine as an NPC when you're playing as Arthur, but during the epilogue, he's just a reskinned Arthur Morgan, in face and body.

He wasn't like that in 1.0. It only changed for the worse after the patches.

[HilAroEye]

Originally posted by Null:

Originally posted by PhillModder:

I mean you could just mod the game if you want it to be different, also what's wrong with john marston? People seem srsly upset about it for no reason at all lol

https://www.polygon.com/2020/6/4/21280437/red-dead-redemption-2-john-marston-changes-patches-update-rockstar

Skip the reading and look at the pictures. Marston is fine as an NPC when you're playing as Arthur, but during the epilogue, he's just a reskinned Arthur Morgan, in face and body.

He wasn't like that in 1.0. It only changed for the worse after the patches.

Yes, I'm also one of those #f!ckarthurmarston guys.
No, even I don't know how to downgrade to ver 1.0 :(

[Null]

Originally posted by HilAroEye:

Originally posted by Null:

https://www.polygon.com/2020/6/4/21280437/red-dead-redemption-2-john-marston-changes-patches-update-rockstar

Skip the reading and look at the pictures. Marston is fine as an NPC when you're playing as Arthur, but during the epilogue, he's just a reskinned Arthur Morgan, in face and body.

He wasn't like that in 1.0. It only changed for the worse after the patches.

Yes, I'm also one of those #f!ckarthurmarston guys.
No, even I don't know how to downgrade to ver 1.0 :(

It seems the only way to get 1.0 on PC cannot be discussed without breaking Steam's Terms of Service.

If you already bought your own copy though, who's stopping ya? (hypothetically)

I wish preservation was more widely agreed upon, like that old Deus Ex: Human Revolution Beta leak. For historical research's sake.

[Bad 💀 Motha]

I would not suggest down-grade RDR2 to 1.0 launch version as that was quite buggy.
However the version just prior to the Dec 2020 update should be good enough to better enjoy Story Mode, as to get the game on the version back to when the gold bars glitch could still be performed. As the future updates to the game didn't do anything of benefit for Story Mode aside from fixing the volume glitch upon launching the game, which was just annoying is all, easy to fix all on your own after you load up a saved game.

This explains how:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lfLZHyOxF-Q

[AresYear]

Originally posted by Bad 💀 Motha:

I would not suggest down-grade RDR2 to 1.0 launch version as that was quite buggy.
However the version just prior to the Dec 2020 update should be good enough to better enjoy Story Mode, as to get the game on the version back to when the gold bars glitch could still be performed. As the future updates to the game didn't do anything of benefit for Story Mode aside from fixing the volume glitch upon launching the game, which was just annoying is all, easy to fix all on your own after you load up a saved game.

This explains how:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lfLZHyOxF-Q

does it still work in 2022?

[ant_sh]

In a nutshell, no. Game forces you to use online connection in RGL for DRM which will forcefully update RGL to latest version as well.
Even if you downgrade the game itself using archived depot it will probably have Activation Error because RGSC stub inside RDR2.exe has changed significantly in latest versions to be up to date with their RGL/RGSC API updates.

[Bad 💀 Motha]

Downgrade the game then launch in Off-Line Mode, play Story only and enjoy.

[Dr. Peeper]

Wasn't the entire food mechanic broken on PC launch and you were always hungry?

[Desano]

Originally posted by PhillModder:

Originally posted by Null:

I want to see how the game was before the patches in its originally intended glory. However, when I bought the game, it was more expensive on Steam than the R* Launcher.

Every guide I see requires the game to be the Steam version, but my early adopter choice for the PC release may have slapped me in the face. But I am in no monetary place to buy the same game twice, nor do I find it morally or ethically reasonable to expect one to.

Is there still a way I can do this? I don't care about online mode at all.

why would you want to downgrade it, 1.0 is a bad version cuz its release day with a bunch of bugs prolly, like dont even bother tbh

It's quite way better than Recent patch as graphics are much better, animations are much smoother and Epilogue John is a bit better in 1.00

[Desano]

Originally posted by Null:

Originally posted by PhillModder:

I mean you could just mod the game if you want it to be different, also what's wrong with john marston? People seem srsly upset about it for no reason at all lol

https://www.polygon.com/2020/6/4/21280437/red-dead-redemption-2-john-marston-changes-patches-update-rockstar

Skip the reading and look at the pictures. Marston is fine as an NPC when you're playing as Arthur, but during the epilogue, he's just a reskinned Arthur Morgan, in face and body.

He wasn't like that in 1.0. It only changed for the worse after the patches.

U can install mods to fix
Mod's name : -Qol - Artie and Johnny (+Also install third person to first person body mod with this)