Grand Theft Auto IV PC patch needs a patch

by Ross Miller { Dec 15th 2008 at 2:28PM }

Continuing in a tradition set forth by Bully, Rockstar's latest Grand Theft Auto IV PC patch may itself be in need of a patch. According to BigDownload, the update has created issues for some gamers' controllers, both Xbox 360 Windows controller and keyboard/mouse combination. For those already experiencing some major issues, it's probably worth downloading now. For everyone else, we suggest waiting until the next patch arrives. Maybe.

Tags: error, grand-theft-auto-iv, gta-iv, gta-iv-pc, gtaiv, patch, rockstar, take-two, update

Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)

jarhead906 @ Dec 15th 2008 2:33PM

Anyone else think they need to patch the Trophy patch?

Or is that just part of the fun and excitement when you finally get Flyin' the Co-op?

Also, fix Bomb da Base II. I'm tired of randomly going back to Single Player when I approach the boat from a seemingly random angle each time.

Shagittarius @ Dec 15th 2008 2:36PM

Finally we're going to get some of the BIG American Patches!

Jakka ( The Order of Haters of Balance) @ Dec 15th 2008 2:45PM

...and here's the leaked info on patch's contents, now with 40% more annoying phone calls.

http://www.somethingawful.com/d/video-game-article/gta-patch-notes.php

Haggard @ Dec 15th 2008 2:38PM

I'm sorta glad I didn't wait for the PC version now. On the one hand, I have to put up with the choppy, low-res PS3 version, but on the other hand it actually works.

XGM @ Dec 16th 2008 1:35AM

LOL believe me, you are better off with the PS3 version. Unless your rig is top of the line, its not going to look any good.

Zorro @ Dec 18th 2008 11:18PM

Call me crazy, but I think the PS3 version looks the best. It's hazy, but has the least graphical bugbears. It's got a "cinematic" look and has the best shadow maps. Still not great, but it's got the smoothest look.

The shadows and textures on X360 look FUGLY. There is a bug in the X360 textures. In the distance, they're distorted. Check Beyond 3d "GTA4 dithering" thread.

Obie @ Dec 15th 2008 2:51PM

You'd think a company making a bazillion dollars could afford some decent programmers and testers. Oh well.

jackal14 @ Dec 15th 2008 3:06PM

Why is it virtually guaranteed that, when this game sells as well as the necronomicon sells to members of the Westboro Baptist Church, it'll be blamed on piracy? I would be absolutely thrilled if Rockstar came out and admitted just how badly they screwed up this port on both a technical level and for the rather poor multiplayer implementation. But they won't. Pirates are much easier to blame for poor sales than admitting you released an inferior port, despite having more powerful technology to play with, that runs like ass on virtually every high end hardware configuration known to man.

Rockstar, here's a small tip: when you release a console port that has system requirements higher than that of Crysis, it's not going to sell well. When you screw up SecuROM so that the already hated, intrusive DRM scheme is somehow actually made worse than what it was, your game isn't going to sell well. When your patches don't really fix what can already be described as a technical abortion and start creating problems where they previously didn't exist, your game isn't going to sell well. Instead of emulating the Capcom of old (Resident Evil 4 PC, Lost Planet PC) you should've emulated the Capcom of new (Devil May Cry 4 PC).

Jakka ( The Order of Haters of Balance) @ Dec 15th 2008 3:10PM

Actually apparently High & Very High are reserved for future computers which means that you're stuck at medium even if your computer can currently 60fps Crysis.

Ihavepants @ Dec 15th 2008 3:25PM

Jakka, that's their excuse for terrible optimisation. As you said, if we can run Crysis fine which is a hell of a lot better looking... what the hell is up with GTA IV having a terrible frame rate on medium.

Plus the damn game won't even launch since I installed the patch.

jackal @ Dec 15th 2008 3:52PM

Jakka,

That's a cop out and you know it. There's no reason a console port should cripple a gaming rig equipped with a Core i7 965 and a GTX 280 (or two in SLI). The "future hardware" Rockstar is talking about exists in the here and now; they were just too stupid to actually use it to any real effect. And, let's be honest. GTA IV wasn't the most visually impressive game in a console environment and it's even less so (even if you turned up every graphical preset to their max just for a screenshot) compared to other PC games.

When you set aside the extreme requirements to run the game at good visual presets, you start to encounter crippling bugs. Go read a tech support forum for about five minutes; you'll find nothing but serious issues. Or, let's talk about how Rockstar totally screwed up their own implementation of SecuROM. People who could play other SecuROM titles (Spore, Crysis: Warhead, Far Cry 2, Fall out 3) are suddenly finding themselves locked out of their own game because it fails to recognize their hardware configuration (even if it installed properly the first time). Something as light as a mild overclock or an underclock can cause their version of SecuROM to throw a royal shit fit while other SecuROM games run just fine and peachy. Making something as absolutely dreadful as SecuROM worse through nothing but sheer technical incompetence is inexcusable.

Stalker: Clear Sky runs better and looks better, despite having shipped it what's almost been admitted as a beta build (bugs galore). There's no reason a fairly small developer, with a relatively small amount of money, from a former Soviet state can put out a more polished sandbox title than what a Western dev with a multi-million dollar budget. And now people are having problems with GTA IV they didn't previously experience after they installed the latest update.

Face it, Rockstar screwed the pooch. They had 8 months to release a polished port, they didn't, they've basically screwed up everything they could have, and they can't even fix their game without breaking it. I have never heard of an e-tailer like Steam accepting refunds, even on a case by case basis, of a videogame. If Steam's willing to give you your money back on something you don't physically own, that says something about the quality of the product, doesn't it?

Jakka ( The Order of Haters of Balance) @ Dec 15th 2008 3:57PM

The backlash hammer hath struck me!

I kid, I kid, I was just pointing out R*'s hypocrisy. Don't worry I hate GTA4 as much as the next guy and the very though of someone thinking I was defending it makes me want to shoot myself.

jackal @ Dec 15th 2008 4:27PM

Jakka,

There's worse wrath, ya know. I could've found out where you live and chained you to a chair in someone's basement, forcing you to watch Alone in the Dark in an endless loop. There's nothing worse than trying to watch Frankennipple....I mean, Tara Reid pretending to be a scientist for roughly 90 minutes. The same goes for post "cocaine abuse completely destroyed my career, mind, and credibility as an actor" Christian Slater playing a detective/archaeologist/something. I honestly can't remember much about the movie other than I really, really wanted to jam a fork into my johnson the entire time; if I was going to be in that much pain, I was gonna do it to myself.

Evan @ Dec 15th 2008 10:56PM

You're all forgetting- it's a fucking city.

The highest settings being reserved for future hardware certainly doesn't come as a surprise.

jackal @ Dec 16th 2008 1:19AM

Evan,

When compared to better looking, equally large sandbox titles like Crysis or Stalker, the performance is still terrible and the "future hardware" argument is still a pitiful cop out. Contemporary hardware is much more powerful than anything found in a console, so there's no reason this game shouldn't run well in the here and now.

Dr. @ Dec 15th 2008 3:08PM

This is ridiculous.

Danny F. @ Dec 15th 2008 3:14PM

I mean its not taht bad honestly, it could've been worse. It could've been developer by Behemoth and we'd have to wait for a patch that will never exist.... :-x

ChiTownRuler23 @ Dec 15th 2008 4:01PM

hmm maybe they new securROM wouldnt work so they made the pc version soooo bad that no one would pirate it

rbtroj @ Dec 15th 2008 4:33PM

Did Rockstar do the PC port themselves or job it out? I'm leery of third-party ports of games, but if the PC port of GTA4 came from Rockstar, then I guess I just have to be leery of all ports.

I know a lot of good ports have been done by third-parties, but it seems (to me anyway) that just as many bad ports come from groups enlisted by the original dev.

jackal @ Dec 15th 2008 5:29PM

rbtroj,

Rockstar ported it themselves; a third party would've at least put some effort, even if they failed miserably. A half-assed attempt would've been much better than what we've gotten so far. Personally, I hope this game sells (I hate to repeat myself) as well as the necronomicon sells in the Westboro Baptist Church; they might learn a few new terms like "quality control", "polish", and "optimization". I've said it before, and I'll say it again: GTA IV is the new Lost Planet PC.

Zorro @ Dec 18th 2008 11:46PM

No, the port was done by Rockstar Toronto. Same outfit that port Bully Scholarship on PC, which I also heard runs like ass.

Rockstar North makes the console games.

DJisGOD @ Dec 15th 2008 4:34PM

the game runs horribly. i have 2 x hd4870 1gb's in crossfire and an overclocked , watercooled e8500 running at 5 gig and the game still runs like crap............good work rockstar

Mopar-Man @ Dec 15th 2008 6:12PM

Here's an idea... how about a recompile - oops - I mean "patch" to lower the system requirements?

ihavenoprobs @ Dec 15th 2008 8:32PM

I honestly don't know what the fuss is all about because I haven't had any problems at all. What-so-ever. Installed the patch yesterday too. Running on an E6600 & HD4850 512MB, everything stock. Even using onboard audio. Doesn't run 60+ fps, but it's still fairly smooth. Seriously, you can't win it all. Crazy kids.

jackal @ Dec 15th 2008 10:00PM

ihavenoprobs,

Good for you. But many people, with vastly superior machines to yours, aren't having such a rosy experience. Some people have incredibly bad luck running a given piece of software on their machines, there's no denying that. But this isn't the occasional software/hardware cockup; it's a rather widespread problem. If it was just a few isolated instances, Steam wouldn't be giving out refunds.

There's widespread complaints of textures not loading (not texture pop-in, but textures absolutely refusing to load), screen tearing, physics bugs, framerates in the teens despite lower image quality presets, BSOD during gameplay, BSOD trying to load the game, crashes, crashes that take Windows out with it, and so on. People are having issues trying to juggle two (or in Steam user's case, three) online portals for multiplayer. Rockstar even borked SecuROM to the point the game won't run on some machines if you've overclocked the processor; it won't recognize your hardware configuration, throw a royal shit fit, and refuse to run. Even for SecuROM that's an almost unheard of complaint. Some are reporting more problems now with the patch than what they were before hand.

The general consensus is that GTA IV is a hack job of a port; half assed would be a step up from what Rockstar delivered. It's not because people are GTA IV haters, it's because Rockstar, through sheer technical incompetence, delivered a stupendously bad port. There's something to be said of when a rig (or many like it) that can handle Crysis at a smooth framerate with everything but AA maxed out can't handle GTA IV with just medium presets. You're the exception, not the standard.

ihavenoprobs @ Dec 15th 2008 11:30PM

@Jackal My machine is two years old with the exception of the gpu. Obviously "underpowered" compared to the brand spanking new i7's and 1GB+ super gpu setups. No biggie, at least the game actually works. You really don't have to hate dude. And yes, I am the exception, as well as anyone else who's playing it just fine.

"I wont go as far as to say stop complaining, but at least be happy theyre even trying. If dev's took all the insults to heart, they'd have flipped all of you haters the bird and left us with high-powered $1600-and-up word processors. My two cents."

Couldn't have said it better. And I'm not even a gaming enthusiast.

jackal @ Dec 16th 2008 1:14AM

ihavenoprobs,

I hate because the cocksucker's been nothing but grief on my end. I don't personally own the game. My friend, however, bought a legit copy from Futureshop and it keeps BSODing (when it's not a complete slideshow). I built his rig and while it won't win any awards for overall computational power, it's pretty good given his budget (less than $650, since his case, DVD-ROM, and HDD were still perfectly usable) and for the resolution he plays at (1280x720). If something doesn't run well on it, I take it personally because it reflects poorly on me.

He has an Phenom 9850, 3x1 GB DDR2 1066, XP SP3, and an HD 3870. It all runs at stock clock speeds, and after testing his system with OCCT, Prime 95, Memtest, and ATiTool, it's rock solid. He's got the latest drivers, patches, and BIOS; he's got a fairly good antivirus program and firewall. Crysis runs well (mostly high, some medium settings no AA/8x AF), Supreme Commander runs well, and Stalker runs okay (still buggy). Background processes are kept to a minimum. GTA IV's been a $50 shit sandwich that he can't return and I can't fix. I've got nothing but free time on my hands since I've been laid off (I'll soon be drawing disability because I've got an elbow injury Oxycodone can't even relieve), so I'm his personal tech support (I charge 1 can of Dr. Pepper per 4 hours).

I won't buy the game (I refuse to pirate video games), even though I've got a much better system overall (E8400 clocked at an OCCT stable 3.8 GHz, DDR2 1150 clocked at 1269 MHz, and a factory overclocked HD 4870 with 795/1095 clocks up from 750/900). Rockstar can go blow a Tijuana Donkey for Turkish Lira.

Everest @ Dec 26th 2008 8:46PM

I'm having an Avarage but playable experience on my 7600GT 256MB pentium 4: 4.2GH + 2GB RAM- Low-Medium settings at 1024x768. after the patch-no notable changes.

I Guess, you people (kids?) should Optimize your system b4 blaming the Company. (Don't get me wrong here), I don't think it was a successful port, I'm having (still) missing textures.

but you should really clean TEMP folders, defragment drives and Registry, Re-Create the page file to 2GB(set page to 0 reboot, set to 2048 both min and max). set GPU fan at 100% (my GPU's fan stays the quietest in the case), Overclock (if needed) CPU/RAM and GPU and increase voltage by 0.0X Volts when X is 1-9, this is safe volts for CPU, RAM and GPU.
Remember that this game is more CPU intensive than Crysis/Warhead, Try overclocking it avan if it's Q6600, you will feel the difference.

Good guides can be found at TweakGuides doot coom ..
Good Lick All,

and for Rockstar I'll say, Nice try. Better luck Next time.
(San Andreas "Storm Sound Bug" is still waiting for a pach)

Not Me @ Dec 15th 2008 9:24PM

I havent had any problems either. E8400, 4GB Ram, 512MB HD3870, and x-fi Platinum. Not amazing framerates, but certainly playable (20 on the low end, as high as 40) This is on high settings, albeit with the draw distance reduced some. And on Vista 64 Ultimate, 1280 by 800 on a 32inch lcd via HDMI. Control can be iffy but performance wise, I have no complaints. I understand people having complaints, but keep in minds you'd all be complaining like sissy girls if they just said f*ck PC altogether...

I wont go as far as to say stop complaining, but at least be happy theyre even trying. If dev's took all the insults to heart, they'd have flipped all of you haters the bird and left us with high-powered $1600-and-up word processors. My two cents.

ihavenoprobs @ Dec 15th 2008 9:59PM

Agreed. Same settings for me as well, except running on XPPro.

Not Me @ Dec 15th 2008 11:00PM

I guess we can just chalk it up to being lucky I guess. But part of me wonders how many of the affected group are either running cd-cracks and or tried to do something about the copy protection themselves. Coming from a former warez user (myself) I found alot of my problems were solved when i actually did the right thing and bought the damned things.

Not discounting those who are having legitimate issues here, I know the problems are real - but lets face reality here folks: 40 percent of the people who are stark raving lunatic mad about this didnt even purchase the game, and lying through their teeth. Or, you bought the game, and thought you could rid yourself of the protection and now it wont work as it should. I find that most people that are true buyers dont get into sob stories about how they, their parents, or their girlfriends walked 5 miles uphill through a Noreaster with a bag of nickels in order to support their favorite developers... *roll eyes*

As far as the overclocking, if we want to split hairs here, technically people arent SUPPOSED to O'C, its just possible to do so and most manufacturers allow us to do so. That said, its not the game developers RESPONSIBILITY to account for this. Great if they do, but not obligatory. So if youre and an overclocked rig, try dialing back to see if your stability increases. If its too much effort, then oh well, but if you really want the game to run, then it is an option. Again, I'm not condoning the problems, but I am saying that responsibility is a two way street and in order to effect the greatest changes, work will come from both sides to offer pragmatic solutions. Flaming companies into submission is NOT the way to go.

Matoxic @ Dec 16th 2008 10:02PM

Dude you talk out of your ass, my mate has an OC'd computer and his GTA runs perfectly. Myself im running everything stock, and I am lost on ho9w many problems I get with it.

Your theory about most of the crybabies are the people who pirated the game is utter bullshit. The people who are complaining are mainly the people who spent their HARD EARNED CASH ON A PILE OF SHIT PORT ROCKSTAR CALL GRAND THEFT AUTO IV.

If I pirated the game (which I have many games in the past) I wouldn't give two shits about whether it worked or not because I didn't have a legite copy.

That's why people are so annoyed because they paid £30/$50 for a piece pf crap that may aswell be a coaster, because rockstars attitude is "highest settings are reserved for future hardware" pffft more like "give it a couple of MORE months, till we finally finish BETA testing, that these suckers have paid for, and then we'll make it look like we said and say that future hardware cured the problem"

People also moaning won't help, rant, rave etc etc nothing will get done about it just yet, atleast not for another couple of months. I'll give it till March 2009 and if it's not done by then I will personally and honestly throw my copy in the bin and be done with R* and GTA forever, MMO's are more enjoyable anyway

TAILGUNNER78 @ Dec 17th 2008 5:09PM

your not reading into things properly, some people have way better machines then you but are having werse problams then you with graphics and draw distence..i have a xfx9800gx2 1gig video card 3.1 shader ..2-1gig corsair 5200amd2 with nvidia GAM590SLI motherboard..my video card is 2 in 1 with 8pin conection sli tech.with xp64 bit and xp32 bit.. NOW WITHIN 10 MIN THE GRAPHICS STOP LOADING MY R.A.M. FILLS UP AND IM NOT FUCKEN HAPPY ANYMORE..TOO MAKE THINGS WERSE IS ONLY CAN SEE 485MG RAM OF MY VIDEO CARD WHEN IT SHOULD SEE 1024....if your not having problams why are you commenting in this site rather then playing the game???

Not Me @ Dec 17th 2008 11:19AM

Dont be so damned full of yourself. Notice I said 40 percent. This is the internet, and if you think that every person that has posted is an innocent law abiding citizen, then you are as naive as you are vulgar and juvenile. Learn to speak with respect and restraint before you sit at the adult table.

I added the overclock situation as a mere suggestion. I said it was an OPTION. If you are having an issue, its very well possible that system stability could be governed by an outside force. I never said the game did not have problems, I'm even having a little texture issue myself since applying the patch. however, my game stills runs great, and since dropping into medium settings, I've been able to get an extra 5-10 fps. Also since were talking about suggestions, those of you on the low side of memory should drop 15 bucks and get yourself a readyboost drive. I have 4 GB off DDR2, along with an additional 6GB flash drive used exclusively for readyboost.

Its apalling to see what lack of general respect is trolling around these days. Like I said before, blasting anyone who says anything contrary to what you believe to be right is just plain dumb. I never said there were not problems with the game, nor did I say it was justifiable. I'm not writing a get out of jail free card for Rockstar, by all means this release was a total pooch screw. But you need to be honest with yourself and admit that there is some truth in what I have said. You know damned well that every person complaining is not doing so with clean hands. These days, people complain even after they stole it. Same thing happened with Call of Duty, and with Live 07, the list goes on and will continue to do so.

Again, My two cents.

Not Me @ Dec 17th 2008 5:55PM

I felt i was read into the situation fine, and trust me I spend plenty of time playing... "That's Some Good Shit" as the game so eloquently puts it...

I merely suggested that not everyone complaining is entirely innocent, and to volunteer some simple ways to boost that wont kill your wallets - Until R* releases the true fix for the game. Also i dont believe that storming the gates and burning an internet effigy is very productive in getting one's point across, know what I mean?

SeriousKriss @ Dec 16th 2008 3:02AM

Wow. I thought there was some kind of Microsoft certification required for games using GfW Live and their patches. If that's true, it shows how much Microsoft really cares about PC gaming...

spike is a joke @ Dec 16th 2008 8:34AM

glad I dident pay for this, the drm put me off purchasing it, first game in yrs I've torrented and by jesus am I glad. reminds me of bf2 patches to fix patches and we all know how that ended up. well done R* for fucking up a great series.

taz @ Dec 16th 2008 4:20PM

I have a core 2 extreme 2.93 with 2x 260gtx in sli..the patch has allowed me to run the game in sli mode..i only have 2 gb ram and an audigy 4 for sound...
I play the game at 1920 res with textures on high and rendered set to highest..i have to scale draw distance down a bit but graphically it dont make much difference at all...who cares about tiny bricks and details in far off buildings when all the actions kicking off at hand? I find that the frame rate gets a vit choppy during day and night transitions but otherwise it performs as well as my 360 version and sometimes better...i like having the option to turn on and off motion blur..city looks sweet without it but the motion blur really makes you feel like your flying down the road...patch has definately helped it out it seems more stable (the frame rate)...i would suggest nvidia users look at your maximum pre-rendered frames in the control panel as this seems to really affect the performance..games not perfect but its still perfectly playable and looks a lot better than I expected to be honest (no AA). At 1920 res, 2x aa would make the image look perfect..but you dont really notice so much at that res...

I dont know if ATI users have a similar setting for controlling max number of frames your processor prepares prior to sending them to the gpu..if so tinker with it..i thought the new catalyst drivers were supposed to give significant peformance boost? Any ATI users care to comment? My pc is about 2 and a half years old (except the gpus obviously)...i remember crysis being a bit of a pig too when it first came out...patience I suppose...it is frustrating though on a principal level...i would personally make sure the game ran good on as many machines as possible prior to release..i would want my customers to praise me and bow down and say, your alright you are, top quality game...guess we cant all be the same, would make for a boring old place..
Hope some of you gta users and friends get yours to run better...

7gothic @ Dec 16th 2008 4:58PM

I have a NEW Alienware and I BOUGHT the game (if you can call it that) and for anyone who says they can play the game without poor performance, errors, crashes or freezes.....and that the rest of us must have stolen the game, or have inferior systems, I would just say this.....GO TO ANY FORUM AND COUNT THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE WHO ARE PLEASED VERSUS THOSE WHO ARENT.......CHECK!! R*'s glaring arrogance burns me the most, trying to minimize. Either they fix this game through a patch (one that works), or re-issue the disk outright, or I will personally launch a You Tube tirade they wont want to see. Jackl, you have it down.

Michaelthurston @ Dec 16th 2008 8:16PM

Okay, well This is where i stand.

I have a decent rig, i wont lie its not that great; but i have a E2180 @ 1.8 GHz(rated at 3.2 GHz)
3 Gigs of Ram
and an nVidia GeForce 8400 GS

and i find that good for me, as i can run all my steam games( hl2, ep 1+2, TF2, Gmod, etc) on very high. Bioshock works great on Max, and Crysis runs good on medium/high.

So when i did a double check to make sure that GTA Iv would work on my PC, i was suprized to find when i got home how much it lagged!

I just let the game choose what it thought was best for my comp. The Cutscenes were horrible, then gameplay was even worse.

So i put it on low, and i did a bench mark test, and i got about 12 fps...max...

Other than choppy framerate i have no severe problems, but i just hope that they could somehow fix this...geez i mean;

Did i expect to much from good ol' rockstar? i sure hope not...

Kage_61 @ Dec 29th 2008 2:51AM

I find it hard to beleive that you can play crysis on medium/high when your CPU doesnt meet minumum requirements and my old 8600GT (now 9600) could only play on low/medium

Michaelthurston @ Dec 29th 2008 9:15PM

Yeah, dont ask me; my computer suprizes me around every corner; i guess it has some sort of hidden power o_O; but anyways, what i mean is i have selections all the way from low to high, maybe 2 low, and the 1-2 high, and the rest medium. I get maybe 19-20 fps, but it dosn't bother me.

CAHop240 @ Dec 16th 2008 9:34PM

I have to echo Jakal's feelings on this game. First of all, that whole "future proofing" line is by far the biggest pile I've ever heard. How can you call your game "future proof" when it doesn't even support features that many present games have, i.e. NO AA, NO SLI/CROSSFIRE, NO DIRECT INPUT DEVICE SUPPORT. ARE YOU F*CKIN KIDDING ME?!?! Terrible optimization. It's a complete and utter cop-out. It's great that a few of you have no problems with the game and can live with the jaggies and stuttering frame rates. But comparing this game to other current games such as FallOut 3, Far Cry 2, COD 5, and a host of other games released this year, GTA4 is by far the biggest let down.

Granted, the game itself has the elements to be great. I would forgive the fact that you need to install two social networking programs and have them running in the background (R* social club, GFWL), and I could probably look past the much hated SecuRom garbage and maybe I would turn the other cheek to a patch that fixes NOTHING, and causes more problems....if the game looked and ran as it was suppose to. But so far R* response has been "its not our fault....its outdated drivers....and outdated systems...and user error" which is a huge slap in the face to PC gamers. That I'm afraid is unforgivable.

heartlessdeath @ Dec 18th 2008 5:44PM

I have read all of the complaints listed in this forum and i must say one thing about all you people... I am sooo glad that i am not the only one that wants to jump off of a fifteen story building. I work at a fifteen story hospital and a service elevator goes to the roof, no key needed. one of you here was saying that that for the most part, EVERYONE is lying about having a legal copy of this game or any other software. I want to see your proof for your reason, that comment has no weight and was based off of complete skepticism. You are a pro-filer. Why would someone want to buy a product that has a lack of compatibility, a patch that causes more problems, and that is not all, You paid $50 American dollars for this game. Lets see, minimum wage in Florida is about $7 dollars, and considering the average American working at minimum or slightly over would work roughly 7 hours to be able to purchase and play this game, they can't play the game due to the very well known problems and better than that is they are stuck with the game. You can't return it for you money back. It makes sense that people are upset and want to go to the first forum that they see and complain till the cows come home, if that is what they need to do to get their monies worth, so be it.

p309 @ Dec 19th 2008 9:27AM

Umm, yeah, the patch messed up my GTA4 install even worse. I installed the patch cuz the controls wouldn't map, still don't know whether they are supposed to be able to or not. Rockstar keeps asking me dumb stuff about my hardware and whatnot.
Anyway, after patching the game, now the camera is all wonky, and so are the menus.
I'm tired of tinkering with this game, it's never worked out of the box. I can stand a little bit of tinkering, we're all used to that kind of stuff.
But, I have the feeling that this is never gonna be good, and that I just really wasted, I mean REALLY wasted, 50 bucks, + tax.
I just wrote to Gamestop to see if they would give me my money back. I'm kinda pissed at the whole deal.

Bungle @ Dec 20th 2008 7:51AM

What the hell did Rockstar do between the time GTAIV came out on the consoles and now? Well, my only guess is this.

Whilst everyone at the Rockstar office sat around in a richly woven, Bacchic haze of money, the play testers for PC were driven to hard drugs, cannibalism and ultimately, fatal self harm. Although their corpses lay in partial decomposition for months as bluebottles and maggots made their feasting way from bloodied keyboards to brain encrusted monitors, still displaying largely unrendered scenes of a glitchy and furry eastern seaboard - the company continued its daily life unaware. The execs, upon finding this previously unknown section of their company, took the maniacal laughter of the one survivor, who sat stabbing his empty eye sockets with the stump of a pencil whilst futilely trying to play minesweeper, as an indication that the game was ready for immediate release for PC.

Following widespread public abuse from their flawed PC port, they then developed a patch by adapting a firmware upgrade for an alarm clock to counter gameplay issues, with a project objective of causing a rapid rate of decline in the sanity of their customers.

I know I can take the game back, and I know Rockstar aren't obliged outside of commercial interest to fix this, but the least they could do is stop treating the millions of problems as 1%ers and just give us something to play.

Jambob @ Dec 21st 2008 10:54AM

I sold the game on ebay and (without realising) sent it before i even got paid. Frankly I don't care. I would pay money not to have this game installed on my PC. Thanks ROCKSTAR.

Spacker Lunchbox @ Jan 12th 2009 9:19AM

Ahh...GTA 4...

I remember, shortly before Crysis came out...the furore over system requirements if you wanted "all the polish" as opposed to just some of it...it was a little buggy on release, but it installed and you could play it, even if it didn't look as good as the screenshots on most rigs...however, a couple of little upgrades, new GPU and before the first patch came out i was at 30-35 fps...there's a lot going on under the hood in Crysis, especially on "Delta" where the AI is ramped up, but at 1650x1080 on mostly "Very high" settings, i enjoy my thing of beauty...and it was easy to install too...

GTA4 - pre-ordered on Steam as most of the games i own are on Steam and it's never let me down. Installing the game and getting it to run took me nearly 5 hours...the software included in the installer did nothing but BSOD my previously 99% stable system, not once but 4 times. When i did finally get it up and running it wouldn't recognise my controller, or allow me to re-configure my controls. On starting the game it would BSOD within 10 second of getting in the car if i had ANY usb device attached...and how does it play/look? Well, while not nearly as demanding, Bioshock looks like Pixar on my system, while GTA looks like Family Guy. Jagged edges i've not seen on a game in years (Jedi Academy being the last really bad one i owned) and while i appreciate it's a big city, considering the lack of detail in certain elements of the game, and that buildings in the distance are essentially 2D...well, disappointing doesn't really say it, as most of us here already know.

I'm not running a slow rig either: E8500 OC'd conservatively to 3.48ghz, GTX 280 OC'd. I mean, this rig runs Crysis at a steady 40fps, and never drops below 30 on Very High...Warhead runs faster still...so the real issue here is of course, undeniably, DEVELOPMENT.

Why did we get a port? Rockstar must have at least had an inkling that they would release to PC at some point so why didn't development start at the same time? A purpose built and possibly port-able game engine that they could make money back on if it was good? We'd have tolerated waiting 9 months longer if we knew that the PC version would, as it should, far exceed the console version in terms of look and feel...no...porting is cheaper after all and Rockstar are a business...thing is, the best businesses don't set out to make more money than the competition, they set out to be better than the competition...money inevitably follows...look at the success of the Wii - it's not more expensive than the 360 or PS3...but it's captured the hearts and minds of millions by being better at what it was intended to do; make gameplay fun for as many people as possible. It's trounced the next-gens despite it's inferior tech because, well, it's just better at it's primary function. Nintendo should be applauded for unflinching focus in a time when gaming had become all about the money and less about the fun.

After 5 weeks of tinkering and tweaking i have a moderately playable GTA4 running...it slows down a lot, it doesn't look as good as certain games i bought 2 years ago and when i go back to Half-Life 2, EP2, my heart sinks because as a product, let alone a game, GTA 4 on the PC disappoints on almost every level.

Patches aren't going to fix the problem unless they can seamlessly replace the game engine without the need for a brand new product which, lets face it, it just not going to happen.

Will i buy another Rockstar product? Not likely. I've been burned and i have no intention of going back. If we all do that, one of two things will happen; Rockstar will stop producing PC games (quite possibly a blessing on recent form - i still can't get San Andreas to run!) or they'll fess up and make an effort to win back the lost fans through quality future releases that are developed for the PC, not ported across from elsewhere. Given the magic touch they managed with the Liberty City Stories/Vice City Stories on the PSP (tweaked and honed for a system with very low capabilities) there really isn't any excuse to provide PC owners with a game to be proud of.

Slate @ Jan 16th 2009 2:46PM

I agree Spacker Lunchbox, I think you nailed it. I bought the game, and one of the lucky ones it seems, I thankfully have been able to run it. Not at a great detail or anything, but it runs ok at 1024x768. It has not crashed and looks ok and runs ok. I have a moderate machine, so I was not expecting visions of grandeur. It is actually a fun game, once you actually launch after jumping though the Social Club.

Im hoping they tweak it some so that those with moderate machines can tweak some more performance because like I said, it is "ok".... would like to see "Good".

rachpoil_vi @ Jan 23rd 2009 4:40PM

I want to thanks and congratulate Rockstar Games for making GTA4 available for PC. I know there are allot of people complaining about the PC version but I personally think that Rockstar Games did a pretty good job on GTA4 even when it was released. Sure the game was not perfect and like the great majority of released games it has its bugs. But I think they where over exaggerated. With the patch installed, the only issue I have is with the key/buttons remapping. I think there is still room for improvement in that area.

At first, I played GTA4 with an old AMD X2 4400 – AGP HD 3850 video system and at default quality setting the game was more than playable in Windows XP (my system was meeting more or less the minimum spec.). Keeping your PC updated and bloat ware free really help. The only issue I encountered was the occasional graphic texture corruption and was a bit disappointed that there was no key/gamepad button remapping. Unlike some other PC game producer, Rockstar Games was very quick and responsible in releasing a patch to fix those issues (the patch also make basic key remapping possible).

I have built a budget gaming PC with an AMD X4 9950 quad core processor - PCIE Geforce 9800 GT (yes, I finally jump to PCIE) and I never encountered any issue in GTA4 even in Windows Vista , with or without the patch, except the occasional graphic texture corruption (without the patch installed; the patch fix the corruption). I now have very smooth frame rate with substantially higher graphic quality settings. The game looked very good with my old system but now the game just looks awesome.

For those that plan on upgrading their PC with GTA4 in mind, I suggest aiming for a better quad core processor rather than a top of the line graphic card. GTA4 is CPU hungry and takes advantage of multithreading so the speed and number of core the processor have makes a big difference for GTA4; but of course you still need a respectable graphic card.

I’m sure allot of GTA4 gamers are satisfied with the game; it is just that people takes the time to send negative post more often than positive one.

Keep up the good work Rockstar Games!