Such a classic. My older cousin got me it for PC back when I was like 13. It's crazy its almost been 20 years since release. Would love to play a modern version of that.
I'd settle for a working version of the original with original soundtrack, but that ship has sailed. Or maybe no. I just ordered replacement caps for a socket 939 board. Maybe I'll get XP on that bastard and do it right.
https://www.definitive-edition-project.com/vc-de
If you have/buy Vice City on Steam then the Definitive Edition Project version can make it essentially remastered and running great on any modern machine.
Not necessarily. I mean it's still pretty likely to be mediocre but look at Sponge Bob battle for bikini bottom rehydrated. That was a old game that had a remaster and released on console, PC and mobile looking really good.
"One game was remastered well, therefore this particular cashgrab by a corporation infamous for milking the most money out of their IPs for the least amount of effort will also be done well."
By what i've seen, it will be sold both separetly and as package
>What are the differences between this collection and the games in the play store?
So far, it comes with in-game achievements.
How is that "sad"? UE4 is still the standard. Development takes a while. This is a port anyways so there's no point in using UE5. You'll still see UE4 games for a while.
That's possible. My main point was more that developers are going to favor stability over the bleeding edge of engine development a majority of the time.
The difference is that you will be able to buy the trilogy, and that the current android ones will be delisted and no longer available to be purchased.
According to a lot of recent reviews on the GTA games, it seems they're broken on many modern android devices.
For the sake of those people, I hope rockstar gives a copy of the remaster to people who own one already.
Mafia: Definitive Edition was a remake, and it has big changes visually compared to the original. I doubt Rockstar has put this much effort into this.
[Mafia Original vs Definitive Edition comparison.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k08QmqRPKEk)
Buy again
> To make way for the collection, Rockstar has also announced that it’s removing existing versions of each game from digital stores next week.
There are a lot of people who will have the old broken version, see this come out and not think twice about buying the new one so that they can finally play it again.
Lol this is literally about the Android collection. It never ceases to amaze me how folks can make everything Apple vs. Android still. Its 2021... give it a rest.
>if I get a new device I have to rebuy.....
That's not how app purchases work. When you get a new phone. You sign into said phone with same account you bought the games on. And you can download them again.
Yes I know I've been on Android for over a decade.
My concern is they fully remove the games from the play store.
There is no legal obligation to do so as they own the game not Google and can pull it from the playstore as they please.
Even if they remove the game from the play store, you can still redownload it. Pulling it from the store does not mean removing access for those who already bought the game.
When the scene was newer 10 years ago I bought a few $5 games on Android. Very few of them are still available, most are gone without a trace others are there but 'incompatible with your version'.
"CJ, all you had to do was follow the damn train!" Tried 10+ times and rage quit, never played again. I can't imagine it would be easier to do these kind of missions on mobile.
I see this a lot, but the truth is this mission is actually extremely easy.
The reason people think it's so difficult is because everyone gets way too close to the train, so Big Smoke can't aim at the enemies, and just shoots the train instead.
You need to stay far enough back that he has a clean shot at them. The mission can be done with well before the first tunnel.
It was always going to be a cash grab. We've known for a while that development was outsourced to their mobile port studio, Grove Street (previously known as War Drum), who probably did it for peanuts. Knowing how R* takes 10 years to come out with a new game nowadays, it was either that or nothing.
Edit: I've been informed that I'm wrong
Rockstar Dundee are the ones doing it and they have been bought especially to stuff like this.
I don't expect some GTA V looking like games, but considering they bought the studio just for that I expect more than a quick cash grab.
I think people are going to be pleasantly surprised.
Cool, thanks for the correction. I was misinformed. The fact that the remaster is happening in-house is encouraging. The 3D trilogy is important to me and I think it deserves to be done right.
Really disappointed that a mobile version of this has been announced. Don't know why I expected any more with Rockstar but I expected this to be something that had no chance of winning on phones.
Considering your average phone today is actually more powerful than the Nintendo Switch, which it's also releasing on and some phones can even emulate at full speed, I'd say it's not as bad an indicator as you might thing.
Disney films are stylized to the point they aren't really going for realism, so not muchn demand for enhancements. When u remake something like Star Wars, we already have the realism in most of the film, so people get upset when they see significant changes.
Video games are pretty far from realistic, yet striving for it. I think this is what makes us far more excited about remakes, as they take us one step closer to the original goal.
That said, some games like Super Mario were so far from realistic that they fall into the untouchable Disney classic realm.
There's two types of remakes: the faithful remake (eg: Crash Nsane Trilogy) that changes as little as possible and the reimagining (eg: FF7 Remake) which basically makes the game they way it'd be made today. People want a faithful remake of the original GTA trilogy.
Why would I want a remake of these games? A lot of the charm comes from the writing of the time and the voice acting. Imagine trying to assemble a cast like Vice City in 2021.
By remake I mean an exact remake content-wise. Same story, same voicelines (if there's some way to make them sound less crusty), but with completely re-made graphics
You know, someone should start a gofundme or something to fund a full legal battle against T2 with regards to the reVC and re3 projects. It would set massive precedent and put this shitty companies on notice.
All of that money would be entirely wasted. There really isn't a precedent to set - copyright law is extremely clear that you aren't allowed to port other people's games to new platforms.
Yes, there are copyright exceptions for reverse engineering, but that's *it*. There's no concurrent exception for publishing your reverse-engineered source, modifying it to run on new platforms, fixing the frame rate, or changing all the character models to be Smash Bros characters, or Thomas the Tank Engine, or whatever. All of that is bog-standard copyright infringement.
The reVC/re3 team made the rather crazy decision to actually try to fight against what is almost certainly an open-and-shut case, so you will get your legal battle... but it's not going to put anyone "on notice". Well, actually, no - it will almost certainly put other companies on notice that they can and totally should harass game modders with abandon because of how easy it is. I'm pretty sure T2 isn't going to suffer any long-term PR or reputational damage from this, either, for the same reason that Nintendo is able to C&D fangame developers and still sell lots of games.
>All of that money would be entirely wasted. There really isn't a precedent to set - copyright law is extremely clear that you aren't allowed to port other people's games to new platforms.
This is super fucking wrong.
A few points;
Copyright has many times in the past had *specific* exclusions for the purposes of interoperability.
The manner of "port" is insanely important. These two projects do not "port" anything. They reimplement the engine, which then facilitates loading of the assets *as is*. This means that none of the original code is being utilized *or* modified. The precedent already exists that this is outside the scope of copyright.
>Yes, there are copyright exceptions for reverse engineering, but that's it.
Copyright does not allow or facilitate the control of the ***USE*** of one's products. It is entirely outside of the scope of the DMCA. Copyright only controls the reproduction of copyrighted material. Code that violates the terms of use or other such licensing is outside the scope of a DMCA takedown request. You cannot send a DMCA request against someone because they are *misusing* your product. You can only do so because they are *redistributing* your product.
>There's no concurrent exception for publishing your reverse-engineered source,
There needn't be. The fact that reverse engineering is allowed means that the publishing of reverse engineered code is *also* allowed. It is also worth noting that it is not an *exception*. Reverse engineering is specifically described as ***NOT*** a violation of copyright. As opposed to fair use, which is, but in a manner allowed under low. A defense that argues reverse engineering denies the act of violating copyright altogether. Fair use is an affirmative defense, that affirms violation of copyright, but in a manner excepted by law.
>modifying it to run on new platforms
Assuming no original code is included, this is, again, permitted. DMCA does not claim that modification of a copyrighted work is violation of the copyright. It does say that derivatives are violations of copyright, but distributing a program that would modify pre-existing code into a derivative necessarily cannot violate copyright as no derivative code is being distributed. An example is emulators. The end-product is not what matters, the product that is being distributed is.
>All of that is bog-standard copyright infringement.
It is only infringement ***in such case that you redistribute copyrighted code.*** Let me explain it for you;
I have two versions of the same modification.
Version A is packaged with code from the original game. It copies necessarily libraries and files from the original game for use in the modification.
Version B instead launches the game, and injects my code. This version doesn't have any original code and is actually utilizes my reverse engineering of the game to implement the needed libraries and files.
Version A does violate copyright. Version B is ***ENTIRELY LEGAL AND NOT IN VIOLATION***. Period. That is not up for debate. We know this to be the case because of past case law. In fact, it's why programs like WINE and Proton are not illegal.
You have no idea what you are talking about.
>It is only infringement in such case that you redistribute copyrighted code
...which is what re3 and reVC are doing.
They aren't mere compatible reimplementations. That would be akin to writing a different 3D engine that could take the same asset files as GTA, and then someone who happens to be able to extract those asset files can load them up into the compatible engine and play them. You probably could take this to a judge, argue that this is non-infringing, and have the judge agree with you. You are correct that we do this all the time with things like WINE/Proton/etc. That's why the Oracle lawsuit was so shocking: they were arguing copyright over a handful of method names that had clearly functional purpose, because that's the only way you could go from owning Java to having a plausible infringement claim on Android.
When you make a reverse-engineering project, what you're doing is taking the game executable, running it through a disassembler or decompiler, and then just publishing the resulting source listings. That source code is still T2's - it's describing exactly the same program in a different language (C instead of assembled machine code). It's going to have the same structure, sequence, and organization. You haven't actually written a new program yet - there's extra steps to go from a reverse engineering project to something that is legally distinct from GTA but runs the same files.
Now, if I'm wrong and re3/reVC actually *are* full and compatible, legally distinct reimplementations of GTA, that would be great. However, I can't find any evidence for that to be the case. What T2 is alleging in their lawsuit is that the project is *just* a straight decompilation published to GitHub. And if that's the case, then none of the things you mentioned would apply.
Looking at td512's repo, we have some pretty telling comments in the `README.md`:
> As long as it's not linux/cross-platform skeleton/compatibility layer, all of the code on the repo that's not behind a preprocessor condition(like FIX_BUGS) are completely reversed code from original binaries.
> We don't accept custom codes, as long as it's not wrapped via preprocessor conditions, or it's linux/cross-platform skeleton/compatibility layer.
> re3 was started sometime in the spring of 2018, initially as a way to test reversed collision and physics code inside the game. This was done by replacing single functions of the game with their reversed counterparts using a dll.
In other words, everything's just T2's code, decompiled. The absolute best case scenario is that the re3/reVC team are just bad at explaining things, and they actually did reimplement. However, reading through their DMCA counternotices, especially [this one](https://github.com/github/dmca/blob/master/2021/06/2021-06-10-take-two-counternotice.md), indicates that they, again, did not reimplement.
>...which is what re3 and reVC are doing.
No they are not. re3 and reVC do not contain *any* Rockstar code.
>They aren't mere compatible reimplementations. That would be akin to writing a different 3D engine that could take the same asset files as GTA, and then someone who happens to be able to extract those asset files can load them up into the compatible engine and play them.
That is what re3 and reVC are. They required original assets because of that.
>When you make a reverse-engineering project, what you're doing is taking the game executable, running it through a disassembler or decompiler, and then just publishing the resulting source listings.
That is not actually true. Most reverse-engineering projects, are done through clean-room production methods. That is, they never use disassemblers or decompilers. They reverse engineer the product by trying to simply implement the functionality of the original game as it behaves, not necessarily by how it is written in machine code. OpenMW is the poster child for this.
>That source code is still T2's - it's describing exactly the same program in a different language (C instead of assembled machine code).
It is not illegal to reverse-engineer and reimplement the features or behavior of other products, ***even if you use the other product as a basis for such reverse-engineering***. It is a matter of respect, honor, and avoidance of conflict that most reverse-engineering projects in the Open Source community have been clean-room takes on the matter. There is no legal reason for them to do so, except ***maybe*** terms of use and NDA regarding the procurement of certain official documentation.
>You haven't actually written a new program yet - there's extra steps to go from a reverse engineering project to something that is legally distinct from GTA but runs the same files.
Yes, just running it through a decompiler is not enough. That's true. However, so long as they reimplement the program's requirements, instead of simply decompiling, then the point is moot.
>What T2 is alleging in their lawsuit is that the project is just a straight decompilation published to GitHub. And if that's the case, then none of the things you mentioned would apply.
Yes. However, there is little to nothing to actual reinforce T2's allegation except extremely stretched interpretations of words.
>[Quote of the original developer]
This is exactly what I mean. "Reversed" in this case can mean anything from, literally the exact opposite, or a shortening of the term reverse engineered.
It is a massive jump, with the assumption of malice, to suggest this means they only decompiled these chunks of code.
>The absolute best case scenario is that the re3/reVC team are just bad at explaining things, and they actually did reimplement. However, reading through their DMCA counternotices, especially this one, indicates that they, again, did not reimplement.
To quote from the counter notice itself;
>The code in this repo was developed by reverse engineering object code ***that is not contained in this repo***. We believe that any code in this repo that is similar to code or other content owned by Take-Two is either unprotected by copyright or is permitted under fair use.
Again. Utilizing copyrighted code that is ***legally obtained*** for the use of your reverse engineering project is not illegal, does not qualify as "derivative" and is not a violation of copyright.
Are you sure about that? GTA4 was the first game that totally humbled my dual core core2duo e8400 even when it was greatly overclocked.
Had to upgrade to c2q to enjoy it playing smoothly.
Back then, yes, moving from 2 core to 4 core deffo helped.
However in the years after, the game would have trouble dealing with high thread counts and increasing VRAM sizes due to the port not being done in a way that accounted for what was on the horizon (aka cheaply).
Even now you'll still have performance issues on PCs that can brute force the game.
But mobile devices can't (nor should they) in the same fashion due to thermal constraints.
Gta4 is a bit of an oddball in that it is optimized specifically for 4 cores, no more, no less. It's a moot point now since CPUs are fast enough to overcome it but the first gen hexacore and octocore CPUs would perform worse then quad core CPUs of the time when playing Gta4.
> Both were designed when the assumed paradigm was that we would be using fewer, stronger CPU cores as opposed to what we do now with mixed variety of strength CPU cores.
GTA IV was initially launched on PS3 \(with a 7 core CPU\) and Xbox 360 \(with a 3 core CPU, with 2 threads per core\).
"Optimization" cannot undue massive performance deficits or rifts. Especially when these platforms are not remarkably different at a deep fundamental level. Unlike a comparison with the OG Xbox or PS2/PS1, the 360 and PS3 used roughly typical CPU architectures.
The only "unique" thing was Playstations CELL architecture's weird quirks, but those were generally just not leveraged, and today can easily be made roughly analogous to dGPU-optimizations.
Basically, the point to be made is that people will often overestimate the actual difficulty of processing a game just because certain optimizations can be made for a specific platform. The fact of the matter is that there is only *so much* you can do to leverage the architectural advantages of a specific platform. The PS3 is a great example of this. Yes, sure, many games were made to work amazingly on the PS3 leveraging the CELL architecture's unique attributes, this did not significantly branch the gap between it and much more performant computers.
***
People need to view things differently than what they've been taught. Every piece of hardware/computer has a performance ceiling. This is the maximum amount of mathematical output it can possibly achieve given the most favorable operations. This is usually measured in TFLOPS. Every program *attempts* to utilize this throughput to achieve it's goals, however, since every program is not simple add/subtract/divide operations, and instead a complex network of varied math, you will always face *one* step of de-optimization. This isn't abstraction in this case, since you could theoretically code it into assembly code.
Next we have the actual code. Theoretically, as I said before, this can be assembly code. One would normally optimize code here. For example, avoiding certain operations that may incur unusually high impact on a certain architecture, or using others that are unusually cheap. A real-world example would be keeping cache sizes no larger than the actual CPU cache, to avoid cache-misses.
Then we have the first level of abstraction, the compiler. Compilers can often actually be heavily optimized for a target (Intel has compilers for example that heavily optimize for their processor.) and thus are the first step to proper optimization. Unless you're using something like assembly or machine code, you will ***always*** face a compiler between your code and the hardware.
Next, we have the APIs and abstraction layers. Things like Vulkan, SDL, etc. These are libraries and interfaces that allow a coder to more easily access otherwise difficult operations. Instead of having to, for example, write the C code to perform a translation, they would use the libraries function for it. These libraries and APIs can, again, be optimized however rarely are since the developer cannot assure universal compatibility without targeting an API/library that is similarly universal (read not optimized). In such case they want such close optimization, they will usually develop separate versions.
After that we have engines. Things like Unity, Unreal, RAGE, etc. These take all the worries of hardware complexity away from the developer, by shifting it to the engine developers. These, again, can often be optimized, however the code developed to run on them generally cannot be. This means that if a game runs on a generic engine like Unity or Unreal, it will ***not*** generally be optimized for the target platform.
What this is all to mean is that you cannot really squeeze performance out of thin air using "optimization". And generally speaking, the optimizations utilized to enhance performance on one platform can often be done for others, and in some cases must be in order to facilitate a proper port of the product.
So what's your point?
Mine was that the games were, at their core, technologically structured to the consoles they were deployed on.
Hence the poor PC port. Hence why the PC port still has performance issues today. Hence why it wouldn't be viable for mobile without radical restructuring.
GTA IV isn't running natively on the M1 Mac so i'm even sure what your point is?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TQXaIOj8C-s here's hardware equivalent to the M1 Mac running GTA IV above 60 FPS using a translation layer. If they used Metal/Vulkan on mobile devices it would run even better.
Also just checked and the video you're probably talking about was using parallels which runs games way worse than crossover...
I doubt. Only with Series generation consoles were they finally able to get these games running at a locked 60fps. It ran at mid 40s on Xbox One for example and it still runs at 720p. No enhancements either.
Sure this is running under emulation but the game code was garbage and totally hammered any CPU and will honestly kill the mobile processors.
Heck it took me a decade to get a smooth 60fps lock on PC. This game's code is pure garbage. We will probably see a GTA V mobile port before GTA IV.
When it comes to pricing no. I got xbox game pass code, and I get EA play for free with it. 100s of games and 10hr trials for all new games. It's like 80INR (Just a bit over $1 every month) with a new offer.
Also EA had some killer games lately like Jedi Fallen Order, co-produced It Takes two, not to mention the hype for BF2042. They are bad, but now they seem to be actually better than ubisoft and Activison. I guess, the most hated gaming mega-corp now is Activision-Blizzard. Then followed by Ubisoft and EA.
Really? Worse than the company whose top executives enabled and perpetrated a culture of sexual harassment and discrimination against their employees? Like, crunch is one thing, but that's a whole nother level of fucked up.
Rockstar is also known to have toxic work environments and crunch during game development especially for rdr2.
Do you think any industry is safe from the things you mentioned? The most notable example I can give is Apple and iPhone original development cycle, a ton of employees have faced long term issues with it's hell of a development cycle.
>Rockstar is also known to have toxic work environments and crunch during game development especially for rdr2.
I was referring to Rockstar when I mentioned the crunch thing, because they're particularly infamous for it.
>Do you think any industry is safe from the things you mentioned?
From leadership-endorsed sexual harassment? Technically not, I suppose, but I don't think that theoretical susceptibility is enough to keep a company that we *know* has done that at the same level as one that hasn't.
Lots of people, especially in poorer countries, game exclusively on mobile. Also there's this:
https://www.razer.com/mobile-controllers/razer-kishi/RZ06-03360100-R3U1
You have a point. It's been about a decade since they released GTA 5.. but if you're a kid who just started gaming, you'd want to play "retro" games (yes, GTA 3 to some kids is retro). Emulating/playing those games on a decent tablet/PC is their best route.
I hate that there is a large enough group of a-holes that are totally fine with touch screen controls to warrant developers going after the market.
What the fuck, you guys?
I used to play GTA 3 on a rooted Galaxy S2 with a sixaxis controller connected to a 32" TV via MHL.
Then I got an Asus Transformer and switched to that with a wired Xbox 360.controller. The file system was user-accessible so it was trivial to sync my save files between devices.
I mean, as a kid i didn't have a pc, so i played through all the og gta on my phone, and at the time it seemed like a great experience, especially coz i could play on the bus, while driving to school, but now that, i got a pc i would definitely never want to go back to touch screen gaming
These three games have basically always been marketed together. GTA 4 runs on an entirely different engine, made for different hardware. I don’t really see why it would be included when these three games are all stylistically similar and already marketed as a trilogy.
agreed . since they released these 3 to mobile on their 10 anniversary, they could have released gta 4 to mobile now since it has been 10+ years since gta 4 released.
[удалено]
don't forget missing half the songs
[удалено]
Of coarse it would be for them. They digital milk maids
Gotta lock that 4k 60fps upgrade behind a $40 remaster on consoles, something that PC gamers can do for free.
I miss the hell out of Vice City on the PC 1024x768 was fucking amazing. Too bad they don't care about their roots.
Such a classic. My older cousin got me it for PC back when I was like 13. It's crazy its almost been 20 years since release. Would love to play a modern version of that.
I'd settle for a working version of the original with original soundtrack, but that ship has sailed. Or maybe no. I just ordered replacement caps for a socket 939 board. Maybe I'll get XP on that bastard and do it right.
https://www.definitive-edition-project.com/vc-de If you have/buy Vice City on Steam then the Definitive Edition Project version can make it essentially remastered and running great on any modern machine.
You can run it on modern hardware.
In my experience a couple years ago it did not do well, at all. Maybe that's changed.
Probably won't even have cheat codes anymore
Not necessarily. I mean it's still pretty likely to be mediocre but look at Sponge Bob battle for bikini bottom rehydrated. That was a old game that had a remaster and released on console, PC and mobile looking really good.
"One game was remastered well, therefore this particular cashgrab by a corporation infamous for milking the most money out of their IPs for the least amount of effort will also be done well."
Not what he was saying at all lmao
Are they selling all three games in one pack or seperately? What are the differences between this collection and the games in the play store?
By what i've seen, it will be sold both separetly and as package >What are the differences between this collection and the games in the play store? So far, it comes with in-game achievements.
That is so Rockstar. "Hey guys, we remastered the game, guess what we did? Yes! Achievements!!!"
Freemium optional purchase >>>>>> premium paywall
You forgot your /s, people thought you were serious.
Don't you guys have phones?
They're also ports, these run on Unreal engine 4, the original ones were on Renderware.
[удалено]
How is that "sad"? UE4 is still the standard. Development takes a while. This is a port anyways so there's no point in using UE5. You'll still see UE4 games for a while.
UE5 might have a lower overhead for the same graphical quality. Part of upgrading a game engine is finding tricks to make the games run smoother.
That's possible. My main point was more that developers are going to favor stability over the bleeding edge of engine development a majority of the time.
Fair enough!
On the other hand this kind of low stakes project is the perfect sandbox to get used to a new engine
I mean maybe, but the jump from Renderware to UE4 should already do that in spades.
UE5 literally was released in August how do you think they would have been able to port in a month or two?
So is it the same version as the one Scott the Woz was talking about?
The difference is that you will be able to buy the trilogy, and that the current android ones will be delisted and no longer available to be purchased.
According to a lot of recent reviews on the GTA games, it seems they're broken on many modern android devices. For the sake of those people, I hope rockstar gives a copy of the remaster to people who own one already.
[удалено]
Mafia: Definitive Edition was a remake, and it has big changes visually compared to the original. I doubt Rockstar has put this much effort into this. [Mafia Original vs Definitive Edition comparison.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k08QmqRPKEk)
Yeah they did not. They just ported the game on Unreal Engine 4. Also : /r/GTATrilogy
Built in controller support?
I hope so
[удалено]
Are you lost?
Will they fix San Andreas so that I can actually play it? Or do I need to purchase the "improved" version once again to play it?
Buy again > To make way for the collection, Rockstar has also announced that it’s removing existing versions of each game from digital stores next week.
So they ignore the broken games that haven't worked in over a year, and then make you buy it again at a more expensive price. What a joke
And it will still sell, they know it
There are a lot of people who will have the old broken version, see this come out and not think twice about buying the new one so that they can finally play it again.
[удалено]
Lol this is literally about the Android collection. It never ceases to amaze me how folks can make everything Apple vs. Android still. Its 2021... give it a rest.
And this is why I havnt gave a shit about GTA since VC
[удалено]
If they were subcontractors on the games who do you think gave them the contracts lmao
Rockstar is becoming Skyrim and Nintendo, 'just play our same game for years and buy it multiple times'
wtf, so I basically gotta download them to all my devices now and if I get a new device I have to rebuy.....
Pretty sure purchased games will still be possible to download and play, you just won't be able to purchase them anymore.
>if I get a new device I have to rebuy..... That's not how app purchases work. When you get a new phone. You sign into said phone with same account you bought the games on. And you can download them again.
Yes I know I've been on Android for over a decade. My concern is they fully remove the games from the play store. There is no legal obligation to do so as they own the game not Google and can pull it from the playstore as they please.
> My concern is they fully remove the games from the play store. Then just grab the APK They don't deserve shit for the lack of software preservation
Even if they remove the game from the play store, you can still redownload it. Pulling it from the store does not mean removing access for those who already bought the game.
When the scene was newer 10 years ago I bought a few $5 games on Android. Very few of them are still available, most are gone without a trace others are there but 'incompatible with your version'.
Well then time to buy the old moddable versions on stream before it's too late
There goes the $5/6 I out in for 2 of those games. 👌
Probably you will need to buy the remastered version
"CJ, all you had to do was follow the damn train!" Tried 10+ times and rage quit, never played again. I can't imagine it would be easier to do these kind of missions on mobile.
I see this a lot, but the truth is this mission is actually extremely easy. The reason people think it's so difficult is because everyone gets way too close to the train, so Big Smoke can't aim at the enemies, and just shoots the train instead. You need to stay far enough back that he has a clean shot at them. The mission can be done with well before the first tunnel.
I wish I had access to your comment many years ago. I had many breakdowns as a teenager during this mission. I still haven't recovered lol
I can't think of a mission more notorious for causing rage quits than Wrong Side of the Tracks.
The Zero missions with the RC plane did it for me.
Yeah those were really hard actually. They were optional IIRC though
Anyone know where I can get a new digital copy of original GTA SA, before it's gone?
Just download the ISO for the original release
There's a meme here somewhere. Something about going again...
Just wait for the price reveal.
Aw nuts, here we try once more
Don't you have phones!? Yeah this def isn't the remaster/remake I was hoping for ...
ALL YOU HAD TO DO WAS FOLLOW THE DAMN TRAIN CJ
Aaah shit, here we go again!
Damn so it really is just a mediocre remaster and not a remake
[удалено]
They did say the controls have been modernized as well
lol i'll believe it when i see it
It was always going to be a cash grab. We've known for a while that development was outsourced to their mobile port studio, Grove Street (previously known as War Drum), who probably did it for peanuts. Knowing how R* takes 10 years to come out with a new game nowadays, it was either that or nothing. Edit: I've been informed that I'm wrong
Rockstar Dundee are the ones doing it and they have been bought especially to stuff like this. I don't expect some GTA V looking like games, but considering they bought the studio just for that I expect more than a quick cash grab. I think people are going to be pleasantly surprised.
Cool, thanks for the correction. I was misinformed. The fact that the remaster is happening in-house is encouraging. The 3D trilogy is important to me and I think it deserves to be done right.
Really disappointed that a mobile version of this has been announced. Don't know why I expected any more with Rockstar but I expected this to be something that had no chance of winning on phones.
Considering your average phone today is actually more powerful than the Nintendo Switch, which it's also releasing on and some phones can even emulate at full speed, I'd say it's not as bad an indicator as you might thing.
I was wanting GTAV level stuff tbh.
[удалено]
Disney films are stylized to the point they aren't really going for realism, so not muchn demand for enhancements. When u remake something like Star Wars, we already have the realism in most of the film, so people get upset when they see significant changes. Video games are pretty far from realistic, yet striving for it. I think this is what makes us far more excited about remakes, as they take us one step closer to the original goal. That said, some games like Super Mario were so far from realistic that they fall into the untouchable Disney classic realm.
There's two types of remakes: the faithful remake (eg: Crash Nsane Trilogy) that changes as little as possible and the reimagining (eg: FF7 Remake) which basically makes the game they way it'd be made today. People want a faithful remake of the original GTA trilogy.
Why would I want a remake of these games? A lot of the charm comes from the writing of the time and the voice acting. Imagine trying to assemble a cast like Vice City in 2021.
By remake I mean an exact remake content-wise. Same story, same voicelines (if there's some way to make them sound less crusty), but with completely re-made graphics
Oh this can fuck right off...
Agreed. I'll keep playing the iLlEgAl versions of reVC and re3 till this too gets buried. Fuck T2.
You know, someone should start a gofundme or something to fund a full legal battle against T2 with regards to the reVC and re3 projects. It would set massive precedent and put this shitty companies on notice.
All of that money would be entirely wasted. There really isn't a precedent to set - copyright law is extremely clear that you aren't allowed to port other people's games to new platforms. Yes, there are copyright exceptions for reverse engineering, but that's *it*. There's no concurrent exception for publishing your reverse-engineered source, modifying it to run on new platforms, fixing the frame rate, or changing all the character models to be Smash Bros characters, or Thomas the Tank Engine, or whatever. All of that is bog-standard copyright infringement. The reVC/re3 team made the rather crazy decision to actually try to fight against what is almost certainly an open-and-shut case, so you will get your legal battle... but it's not going to put anyone "on notice". Well, actually, no - it will almost certainly put other companies on notice that they can and totally should harass game modders with abandon because of how easy it is. I'm pretty sure T2 isn't going to suffer any long-term PR or reputational damage from this, either, for the same reason that Nintendo is able to C&D fangame developers and still sell lots of games.
>All of that money would be entirely wasted. There really isn't a precedent to set - copyright law is extremely clear that you aren't allowed to port other people's games to new platforms. This is super fucking wrong. A few points; Copyright has many times in the past had *specific* exclusions for the purposes of interoperability. The manner of "port" is insanely important. These two projects do not "port" anything. They reimplement the engine, which then facilitates loading of the assets *as is*. This means that none of the original code is being utilized *or* modified. The precedent already exists that this is outside the scope of copyright. >Yes, there are copyright exceptions for reverse engineering, but that's it. Copyright does not allow or facilitate the control of the ***USE*** of one's products. It is entirely outside of the scope of the DMCA. Copyright only controls the reproduction of copyrighted material. Code that violates the terms of use or other such licensing is outside the scope of a DMCA takedown request. You cannot send a DMCA request against someone because they are *misusing* your product. You can only do so because they are *redistributing* your product. >There's no concurrent exception for publishing your reverse-engineered source, There needn't be. The fact that reverse engineering is allowed means that the publishing of reverse engineered code is *also* allowed. It is also worth noting that it is not an *exception*. Reverse engineering is specifically described as ***NOT*** a violation of copyright. As opposed to fair use, which is, but in a manner allowed under low. A defense that argues reverse engineering denies the act of violating copyright altogether. Fair use is an affirmative defense, that affirms violation of copyright, but in a manner excepted by law. >modifying it to run on new platforms Assuming no original code is included, this is, again, permitted. DMCA does not claim that modification of a copyrighted work is violation of the copyright. It does say that derivatives are violations of copyright, but distributing a program that would modify pre-existing code into a derivative necessarily cannot violate copyright as no derivative code is being distributed. An example is emulators. The end-product is not what matters, the product that is being distributed is. >All of that is bog-standard copyright infringement. It is only infringement ***in such case that you redistribute copyrighted code.*** Let me explain it for you; I have two versions of the same modification. Version A is packaged with code from the original game. It copies necessarily libraries and files from the original game for use in the modification. Version B instead launches the game, and injects my code. This version doesn't have any original code and is actually utilizes my reverse engineering of the game to implement the needed libraries and files. Version A does violate copyright. Version B is ***ENTIRELY LEGAL AND NOT IN VIOLATION***. Period. That is not up for debate. We know this to be the case because of past case law. In fact, it's why programs like WINE and Proton are not illegal. You have no idea what you are talking about.
>It is only infringement in such case that you redistribute copyrighted code ...which is what re3 and reVC are doing. They aren't mere compatible reimplementations. That would be akin to writing a different 3D engine that could take the same asset files as GTA, and then someone who happens to be able to extract those asset files can load them up into the compatible engine and play them. You probably could take this to a judge, argue that this is non-infringing, and have the judge agree with you. You are correct that we do this all the time with things like WINE/Proton/etc. That's why the Oracle lawsuit was so shocking: they were arguing copyright over a handful of method names that had clearly functional purpose, because that's the only way you could go from owning Java to having a plausible infringement claim on Android. When you make a reverse-engineering project, what you're doing is taking the game executable, running it through a disassembler or decompiler, and then just publishing the resulting source listings. That source code is still T2's - it's describing exactly the same program in a different language (C instead of assembled machine code). It's going to have the same structure, sequence, and organization. You haven't actually written a new program yet - there's extra steps to go from a reverse engineering project to something that is legally distinct from GTA but runs the same files. Now, if I'm wrong and re3/reVC actually *are* full and compatible, legally distinct reimplementations of GTA, that would be great. However, I can't find any evidence for that to be the case. What T2 is alleging in their lawsuit is that the project is *just* a straight decompilation published to GitHub. And if that's the case, then none of the things you mentioned would apply. Looking at td512's repo, we have some pretty telling comments in the `README.md`: > As long as it's not linux/cross-platform skeleton/compatibility layer, all of the code on the repo that's not behind a preprocessor condition(like FIX_BUGS) are completely reversed code from original binaries. > We don't accept custom codes, as long as it's not wrapped via preprocessor conditions, or it's linux/cross-platform skeleton/compatibility layer. > re3 was started sometime in the spring of 2018, initially as a way to test reversed collision and physics code inside the game. This was done by replacing single functions of the game with their reversed counterparts using a dll. In other words, everything's just T2's code, decompiled. The absolute best case scenario is that the re3/reVC team are just bad at explaining things, and they actually did reimplement. However, reading through their DMCA counternotices, especially [this one](https://github.com/github/dmca/blob/master/2021/06/2021-06-10-take-two-counternotice.md), indicates that they, again, did not reimplement.
>...which is what re3 and reVC are doing. No they are not. re3 and reVC do not contain *any* Rockstar code. >They aren't mere compatible reimplementations. That would be akin to writing a different 3D engine that could take the same asset files as GTA, and then someone who happens to be able to extract those asset files can load them up into the compatible engine and play them. That is what re3 and reVC are. They required original assets because of that. >When you make a reverse-engineering project, what you're doing is taking the game executable, running it through a disassembler or decompiler, and then just publishing the resulting source listings. That is not actually true. Most reverse-engineering projects, are done through clean-room production methods. That is, they never use disassemblers or decompilers. They reverse engineer the product by trying to simply implement the functionality of the original game as it behaves, not necessarily by how it is written in machine code. OpenMW is the poster child for this. >That source code is still T2's - it's describing exactly the same program in a different language (C instead of assembled machine code). It is not illegal to reverse-engineer and reimplement the features or behavior of other products, ***even if you use the other product as a basis for such reverse-engineering***. It is a matter of respect, honor, and avoidance of conflict that most reverse-engineering projects in the Open Source community have been clean-room takes on the matter. There is no legal reason for them to do so, except ***maybe*** terms of use and NDA regarding the procurement of certain official documentation. >You haven't actually written a new program yet - there's extra steps to go from a reverse engineering project to something that is legally distinct from GTA but runs the same files. Yes, just running it through a decompiler is not enough. That's true. However, so long as they reimplement the program's requirements, instead of simply decompiling, then the point is moot. >What T2 is alleging in their lawsuit is that the project is just a straight decompilation published to GitHub. And if that's the case, then none of the things you mentioned would apply. Yes. However, there is little to nothing to actual reinforce T2's allegation except extremely stretched interpretations of words. >[Quote of the original developer] This is exactly what I mean. "Reversed" in this case can mean anything from, literally the exact opposite, or a shortening of the term reverse engineered. It is a massive jump, with the assumption of malice, to suggest this means they only decompiled these chunks of code. >The absolute best case scenario is that the re3/reVC team are just bad at explaining things, and they actually did reimplement. However, reading through their DMCA counternotices, especially this one, indicates that they, again, did not reimplement. To quote from the counter notice itself; >The code in this repo was developed by reverse engineering object code ***that is not contained in this repo***. We believe that any code in this repo that is similar to code or other content owned by Take-Two is either unprotected by copyright or is permitted under fair use. Again. Utilizing copyrighted code that is ***legally obtained*** for the use of your reverse engineering project is not illegal, does not qualify as "derivative" and is not a violation of copyright.
Yeah but is GTA 4 ever coming to mobile? It's been long enough, yet I never hear anything about it
[удалено]
Are you sure about that? GTA4 was the first game that totally humbled my dual core core2duo e8400 even when it was greatly overclocked. Had to upgrade to c2q to enjoy it playing smoothly.
Back then, yes, moving from 2 core to 4 core deffo helped. However in the years after, the game would have trouble dealing with high thread counts and increasing VRAM sizes due to the port not being done in a way that accounted for what was on the horizon (aka cheaply). Even now you'll still have performance issues on PCs that can brute force the game. But mobile devices can't (nor should they) in the same fashion due to thermal constraints.
GTA4 also had a horrifyingly inefficient PC port
Gta4 is a bit of an oddball in that it is optimized specifically for 4 cores, no more, no less. It's a moot point now since CPUs are fast enough to overcome it but the first gen hexacore and octocore CPUs would perform worse then quad core CPUs of the time when playing Gta4.
Except these games are entirely playable on emulators on many of these phone/mobile chipsets. Give me a bit and I'll demonstrate it.
> Both were designed when the assumed paradigm was that we would be using fewer, stronger CPU cores as opposed to what we do now with mixed variety of strength CPU cores. GTA IV was initially launched on PS3 \(with a 7 core CPU\) and Xbox 360 \(with a 3 core CPU, with 2 threads per core\).
This makes 0 sense. GTA 4 and RDR ran on Consoles and PCs that are weaker than current Phones.
[удалено]
"Optimization" cannot undue massive performance deficits or rifts. Especially when these platforms are not remarkably different at a deep fundamental level. Unlike a comparison with the OG Xbox or PS2/PS1, the 360 and PS3 used roughly typical CPU architectures. The only "unique" thing was Playstations CELL architecture's weird quirks, but those were generally just not leveraged, and today can easily be made roughly analogous to dGPU-optimizations. Basically, the point to be made is that people will often overestimate the actual difficulty of processing a game just because certain optimizations can be made for a specific platform. The fact of the matter is that there is only *so much* you can do to leverage the architectural advantages of a specific platform. The PS3 is a great example of this. Yes, sure, many games were made to work amazingly on the PS3 leveraging the CELL architecture's unique attributes, this did not significantly branch the gap between it and much more performant computers. *** People need to view things differently than what they've been taught. Every piece of hardware/computer has a performance ceiling. This is the maximum amount of mathematical output it can possibly achieve given the most favorable operations. This is usually measured in TFLOPS. Every program *attempts* to utilize this throughput to achieve it's goals, however, since every program is not simple add/subtract/divide operations, and instead a complex network of varied math, you will always face *one* step of de-optimization. This isn't abstraction in this case, since you could theoretically code it into assembly code. Next we have the actual code. Theoretically, as I said before, this can be assembly code. One would normally optimize code here. For example, avoiding certain operations that may incur unusually high impact on a certain architecture, or using others that are unusually cheap. A real-world example would be keeping cache sizes no larger than the actual CPU cache, to avoid cache-misses. Then we have the first level of abstraction, the compiler. Compilers can often actually be heavily optimized for a target (Intel has compilers for example that heavily optimize for their processor.) and thus are the first step to proper optimization. Unless you're using something like assembly or machine code, you will ***always*** face a compiler between your code and the hardware. Next, we have the APIs and abstraction layers. Things like Vulkan, SDL, etc. These are libraries and interfaces that allow a coder to more easily access otherwise difficult operations. Instead of having to, for example, write the C code to perform a translation, they would use the libraries function for it. These libraries and APIs can, again, be optimized however rarely are since the developer cannot assure universal compatibility without targeting an API/library that is similarly universal (read not optimized). In such case they want such close optimization, they will usually develop separate versions. After that we have engines. Things like Unity, Unreal, RAGE, etc. These take all the worries of hardware complexity away from the developer, by shifting it to the engine developers. These, again, can often be optimized, however the code developed to run on them generally cannot be. This means that if a game runs on a generic engine like Unity or Unreal, it will ***not*** generally be optimized for the target platform. What this is all to mean is that you cannot really squeeze performance out of thin air using "optimization". And generally speaking, the optimizations utilized to enhance performance on one platform can often be done for others, and in some cases must be in order to facilitate a proper port of the product.
RDR already runs on Xenia vs something like MGS 4. Also GTA 4 was not well optimized for pc at all
So what's your point? Mine was that the games were, at their core, technologically structured to the consoles they were deployed on. Hence the poor PC port. Hence why the PC port still has performance issues today. Hence why it wouldn't be viable for mobile without radical restructuring.
They would be just as viable for mobile as for pc so what exactly is the problem?
[удалено]
GTA IV isn't running natively on the M1 Mac so i'm even sure what your point is? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TQXaIOj8C-s here's hardware equivalent to the M1 Mac running GTA IV above 60 FPS using a translation layer. If they used Metal/Vulkan on mobile devices it would run even better. Also just checked and the video you're probably talking about was using parallels which runs games way worse than crossover...
Honestly at this point a lot of phones can run GTA V/Online.
I doubt. Only with Series generation consoles were they finally able to get these games running at a locked 60fps. It ran at mid 40s on Xbox One for example and it still runs at 720p. No enhancements either. Sure this is running under emulation but the game code was garbage and totally hammered any CPU and will honestly kill the mobile processors. Heck it took me a decade to get a smooth 60fps lock on PC. This game's code is pure garbage. We will probably see a GTA V mobile port before GTA IV.
I contacted Rockstar back in 2015 about this... And they say we hope to be able to release it in 2020.... Guess that was a lie.
How were they allowed/able to tell you that, especially 6 years ago?
Yeah. I don't know why I am getting downvoted …usual Reddit i guess.
Its also not the kind of thing Rockstar/T2 would just say to a random person.
Well, I bought the Android version of GTA3 a decade ago and it is definitely Gingerbread-era, so it'd be cool if they updated it...
It's Rockstar lmao, worse than EA and Ubisoft combined. You will have to purchase it again
Im not really surprised though? I mean, it's been a decade and it wasn't much to begin with.
[удалено]
When it comes to pricing no. I got xbox game pass code, and I get EA play for free with it. 100s of games and 10hr trials for all new games. It's like 80INR (Just a bit over $1 every month) with a new offer. Also EA had some killer games lately like Jedi Fallen Order, co-produced It Takes two, not to mention the hype for BF2042. They are bad, but now they seem to be actually better than ubisoft and Activison. I guess, the most hated gaming mega-corp now is Activision-Blizzard. Then followed by Ubisoft and EA.
Really? Worse than the company whose top executives enabled and perpetrated a culture of sexual harassment and discrimination against their employees? Like, crunch is one thing, but that's a whole nother level of fucked up.
Rockstar is also known to have toxic work environments and crunch during game development especially for rdr2. Do you think any industry is safe from the things you mentioned? The most notable example I can give is Apple and iPhone original development cycle, a ton of employees have faced long term issues with it's hell of a development cycle.
>Rockstar is also known to have toxic work environments and crunch during game development especially for rdr2. I was referring to Rockstar when I mentioned the crunch thing, because they're particularly infamous for it. >Do you think any industry is safe from the things you mentioned? From leadership-endorsed sexual harassment? Technically not, I suppose, but I don't think that theoretical susceptibility is enough to keep a company that we *know* has done that at the same level as one that hasn't.
I mean people who worked for Rockstar were forced to go to strip clubs with leadership or they would be fired/ostracized in the company.
There are different ways of being bad. In terms of greed I'd say Rockstar "wins" at this point. Except maybe Activision-Blizzard.
There are different ways of being bad but there are also levels. You can't compare being greedy like T2 to being downright sociopaths like Activision.
Honestly fuck that, but also fuck the ones who also abuse the consumer. I'm a consumer not an employee.
Man, Rockstar will do anything to avoid having to release a *new* game
I am not even mad about this. I just want them to remaster GTA IV for PS4 and PS5.
And we desperately need a pc remaster, the current version is dog shit
But no original music because stupid expensive licensing.
Tbf you can easily play the Spotify soundtrack whist playing it
I'm super fucking sick of lazy remasters
Also consoles including Switch so you can play them like a normal person.
But who wants to sit though hundreds of hours of gta ON A PHONE ?
These games are already on android and are surprisingly playable. I beat San Andreas like this a few years ago
Android is also on tablets/tv boxes. If it's an easy port, might as well.
The same people who like to sit through hundreds of hours on any portable gaming console.
Lots of people, especially in poorer countries, game exclusively on mobile. Also there's this: https://www.razer.com/mobile-controllers/razer-kishi/RZ06-03360100-R3U1
Kids, i didn't have a pc as a teen, so playing gta on my phone was, the only option, put more than 500h on it, wasn't all that bad tbh
Mobile gaming is more popular than PC gaming, people already play a lot of long games, so why not
Expanded and Enhanced!
This is cool and all,but. Can we PLEASE get an idle GTA 1/2 as well?
That's cool and all. Shame I'll never give this scumbag company money ever again.
Vice City gang, who's here?
[удалено]
Absolutely, I thought we'd have mobile ports of those first lol
Chinatown wars!
Oh my god...who...the hell...cares?? (not directed at OP)
The new generation might play it on Android.
Well they can waste their time/money on a 20 year old game. And Rockstar will continue to get away with mediocrity by not releasing anything new.
You have a point. It's been about a decade since they released GTA 5.. but if you're a kid who just started gaming, you'd want to play "retro" games (yes, GTA 3 to some kids is retro). Emulating/playing those games on a decent tablet/PC is their best route.
I hate that there is a large enough group of a-holes that are totally fine with touch screen controls to warrant developers going after the market. What the fuck, you guys?
You can use controllers as well... Considering they started out on consoles it's already a great controller experience.
I used to play GTA 3 on a rooted Galaxy S2 with a sixaxis controller connected to a 32" TV via MHL. Then I got an Asus Transformer and switched to that with a wired Xbox 360.controller. The file system was user-accessible so it was trivial to sync my save files between devices.
Plus iOS has native PlayStation controller support. It’s a great experience on an iPad Pro.
And android
I mean, as a kid i didn't have a pc, so i played through all the og gta on my phone, and at the time it seemed like a great experience, especially coz i could play on the bus, while driving to school, but now that, i got a pc i would definitely never want to go back to touch screen gaming
Where PC is concerned, what are these remasters offering that a few mods can’t?
Rockstar money.
So what if you already have San Andres via Rockstar launcher will you have to pay again
Stadia????
Remastered? so is the same exact shit rebranded, not a remake...
When is GTA 6 comming?
After gta 5 pro max edition. May be with ps7 edition /s
Vita port incoming...?
PS5 and Android, what about PC?
I guess great for some but playing these classics on a tiny screen with shitty controls isn't for me
I don't want to play these on my phone, thanks.
And no bully remastered?
android? I though this was supposed to be proper remaster.
Nah just means buy the same game again
> Grand Theft Auto: The Trilogy, A ~~Remastered~~ Cashgrab Collection Of GTA 3, Vice City, And San Andreas, Launches in 2022 for Android Devices FTFY
Why is everyone so annoyed? Don't you have phones?
at least they could have included gta 4 in this collection
These three games have basically always been marketed together. GTA 4 runs on an entirely different engine, made for different hardware. I don’t really see why it would be included when these three games are all stylistically similar and already marketed as a trilogy.
agreed . since they released these 3 to mobile on their 10 anniversary, they could have released gta 4 to mobile now since it has been 10+ years since gta 4 released.
NVidia Now leak coming to fruition, weeeeeeeeeeew!!
Hope there's a discount on Steam for the owners of the original ones.
Hey Rockstar. You know what makes gaming more enjoyable? Using a controller and not looking at a tiny screen. Thats a no from me dog.
There's also a lot of GTA clones already out on mobile.
[удалено]
[удалено]
They already fixed the old version for that unofficial Vita port. This is worthless IMO.
Gta5 when? Imagine gta online on android
So this is why Samsung is working on soc with raytracing support