Can someone explain what is this "leak"?

Is it something like GTA SA's Hot Coffe?

dont i know you from the blox fruits wiki?

@HumAntTheWarriorAnt its basically an old leak that came out soon after the game did. the leak came from a self-professed alleged ex-employee who was disgruntled with how the game turned out as there was a ton of cut content. the leak goes on to describe hundreds of cut things in a bulleted list, some of which sounds cool, some of which sounds disgusting and horrible, and some just straight up weird. several years later, a lot of content from the leak was confirmed to be found in the game files and from other sources. the people in this post are attacking me for believing the leak could have been valid, as im mainly focusing on why the wiki says it was "proven to be a hoax" despite me not finding any proof.

Being from a Roblox game wiki doesn't mean I don't play peak.And thanks for explanation.

@H. Roosevelt Yo, that guy says I can make decisions on behalf of the wiki because it's a fandom site. Get out of here and give me your position. Imma declare that Uncle is Red Harlow, that GTA and Red Dead are the same universe, and that Trelawny is the Strange Man because this is fandom and nothing else matters. Pretend this is a Roblox Wiki.

@Baguetteboing And you keep dodging my actual questions. The ones I made clear to you. You're not getting away from actually exposing the notes that I want you to expose as dubious. You don't want to because those are obvious red flags that wouldn't look good for your thesis. So, I'll ask. Are you going to review those specific notes I pointed out and try to come up with an answer for each of them?

you can edit pages freely, its not like the page itself is locked to admins-only or anything. wikis are volunteer work. and yes, i dodge doing what you've asked me to do because you've failed to do the same for me. its a lot of work for no reason. even if every single thing is dubious, bogus, or insane, is any of that proof? does any of that answer my original question? but fine, i'll set aside my homework and free time to start a pointless argument over perspective and opinion instead of getting anything worthwhile out of you.

reminder, this is stuff that was (allegedly) cut from the game. it was likely cut for a reason. im not saying each of these is valid or better than what we got, but that it was possible that the idea was being floated around prior to it being cut.

1. the weapons in the game are often anachronistic or "outdated" by the time of the game. pretty much every reviewer and expert has said the same thing. Towns such as Valentine much more closely represent towns in the West during the 1870's-1880's. This is known. Im fairly certain it even says so on the wiki. 1899 is also a very odd year for the entire game (pre-epilogue) to take place. Its out of place, its odd, and its historically difficult to build around. 1899 is too late, and tons of what happens in rdr2 is off historically such as gun laws and alcohol distribution. I always felt as though rdr2 would've benefitted from taking place in the 1880's instead. Detail is placed in characters having realistic pores and we already got "aging" like from the epilogue. I can believe this was a scrapped idea. even online mode takes place before 1899.

5. Arthur is largely asexual in the entire game, which i felt was extremely odd for rockstar games. There is literally zero romance at all anywhere, implied or otherwise. The only mention is with his previous wife, and arthur's missions with her seemed like a major let-down and generally dull. Arthur's total lack of romance (including an aversion to even prostitutes) could be explained by cut content. I heard somewhere that arthur was supposed to be a widower and that cut content explains his depression and miserable attitude toward everything as a result of his son freezing to death at the beginning of the game. Yet more cut content which turned out to be true and explained some things about arthur's personality. A widower would be averse to sex, even in a rockstar game. Also, personal opinion, there is a fair amount of queer representation in rdr2 and if im being honest it really seemed like there was a large amount of chemistry between charles and arthur. i know the game takes place fairly late in the story, but it always felt like there was a ton of story/history with these characters that we as the player are simply blind to.

If arthur was originally supposed to be bisexual, then this would've been the way to do it.

9. this absolutely sounds believable with the amount of effort put into horses in the game, the fact you can capture thoroughbreds, the ungodly amount of cut horse content we know of, does this really surprise you? horse breeding? you do everything short of breeding horses in the game. you herd sheep for a mission, you clean guns, you clean sheep, and horse-breeding was a well-established practice in the time and place of the game which cowboys would have been exposed to. Yes the horse genitals were probably for the press, but them having an actual ingame purpose is not impossible. im not saying any of this stuff should've been added to the game, but the idea it was cut is not insane.

10. does this shock you? i completely agree with this. this not only would have been awesome but would explain a lot of the "empty" places on the map, along with implied locations like armadillo having more actual settlements and more of texas's diverse geography being used where it should be. If you ever see that really cluttered map of the closest connection each state has to real life geography, you'll see how odd it is.

13. is something wrong with this? they had a different idea for strauss which ended up being scrapped. is this somehow impossible? talking to him about finances instead of just having a box would've made more sense anyways. i dont see how this is odd. strauss' actual origins and presence in the game is severely muted in release. having a half-breed german would definitely better display the ethnic diversity in america without needing everyone to look and sound so stereotypical. While the late 19th century had a lot of immigrations, america was fairly populated and already had several generatons of inter-bred european descendents. Annesburg seemed fairly odd as well.

34. this would've been similar to arthur's decline due to tuberculosis. i did think it was odd that the uncle in rdr2 is barely different to rdr1. this being a cut story beat makes sense to me. it would've made him slightly more tragic which i think would've suited his character and seemed more like something rockstar games would do. in rdr1 hes so... uncle that is just makes sense for there to be a cause. as-is there is no cause other than simple laziness, which is fine, and is probably why it got cut.

49. this is very brutal, but is entirely accurate to a very prevalent problem with chinese prostitution in the united states circa 1880. you can see why this was cut, as rockstar tends to avoid involving children. when they say child prostitute, i imagine they mean more like 14-16 than an actual "child", which was more common for new orleans hookers at the time. its extremely dark, and is definetely a cruel "no true winners" thing, which absolutely, in my opinion, seems the most like rockstar. they made a point a few times in the game to emphasize that things "werent better in the old days". the west is depicted as it really was. the game's reference to blood meridian makes me think the developers were keen on keeping the game extremely unfortunate. much of the serial killers and other content from previous games (such as gta v) have similarly dreary endings, and even other things in rdr2 seem to simply have bad endings. and did we forget rdr1? old-school rockstar was brutal, but i can see why this ended up on the cutting room floor.

59. this was a terrible idea imo and im glad it was (allegedly) cut. it did seem like rdr2 was going to be a lot more ambitious. i mean, the game gets all the way to like 1907, and online takes place before the game even starts. this doesnt shock me as a potential idea, and i think it would've been doable and cool, but its obvious why it never made it in.

72. wow, thats crazy. no way they'd ever show something surreal and futuristic possibly implying interdimensional time travel, would they? this honestly sounds like how the francis sinclair mural looks. the rock carvings are already the source of so much weird futuristic paranormal shenanigans. but in the end, it was allegedly cut, so what can i say. seems plausible.

77. i think pretty much everyone can agree that the way the lannahechee river ingame works is really confusing and messes with even the most basic of american geography, and it contradicts rdr1 and obviously betrays its real life inspiration. i can absolutely, without a doubt, 100% believe this was supposed to be the case at some point in development. Im even willing to believe this was one of the later changes, as the way it is currently ingame is genuinely stupid and nonsensical, and a small change such as this would've made infinitely more sense.

anyone can edit wikis, but if you edit pages with false information, you will likely be blocked. you of all people should know this, you have like 1000 edits. and is there something wrong with roblox wikis? i was just saying hi to a user i know.

this is just so trite and stupid. anybody can edit the wiki, but not everybody will have their edits reverted. have you asked a sysop, bureaucrat, or content moderator for permission every time you've ever edited a page? no. you dont always cite sources either, apparently. the person who originally added the fact that the leak was "proven false" never explained their position nor cited any specific proof for the sudden decision.

If there is no proof, the sentence is a lie, and someone should edit it to fix it. even something as simple as "some of the claims in the leak are very egregious or unbelievable so the wiki considers it a likely hoax". thats already infinitely better than "it has since been proven". what does that even mean? since been proven? since when? and how? what changed?

also, if you dont have any actual proof, then just say so. if you think the leak is too unbelievable, then just say so. dont say its been proven false without presenting any proof. @H. Roosevelt mentioned that his personal theory was that it was some degenerate who used other posts to make his claims seem legitimate. this is more fair, as its a theory. but my original post asked if there was ever any proof that the leak was false, and by extension what the wiki means when the page says "it has since been proven false" or whatever. personal theories are NOT proof. how much patience must i spend before you simply tell me you dont know? or say anything other than "its too outrageous for rockstar, therefor false". ive played by your rules enough already.

i've added a small {{Fact}} citation request next to "has since been proven" to the page, because its a statement that implies theres proof. i think the proof should be linked. if there is no proof and its instead just "the content of the leak is too wild", then say that instead. if you're going to undo my edit, take it to my message wall or discord instead.

Damn, he took the bait lol.