Game is fun. Game looks great. SONY isn't bleeding money because of ridiculously expensive hardware. I'm ok with the way things turned out...

Wasn't this topic already being discussed in another thread already?.

The article news in the pic is also old now and done with by most accounts, same with this current discussion which will just end up steering directly into PC/console wars all over again (already seeing jabs).

I'll grab W3 at some point when it's more stable in my eyes along with it being cheaper and the mods are already starting to appear which is good in general, some SweetFX shaders are already making the game look a little more like the trailer from nearly 2 years ago.

Good question, I always expect it to lag behind PC because with pc, you want high end graphics, you could easily spend 1,000's and to me it's not that much better. Hence why I buy consoles.

Good question, I always expect it to lag behind PC because with pc, you want high end graphics, you could easily spend 1,000's and to me it's not that much better. Hence why I buy consoles.

Update: Double post.

From what i've seen even the PC version on ultra settings is a downgrade compared to the early footage. And even a GTX 980 dips to 30 fps with that. So i'm not sure what they were expecting from the next gen consoles, triple sli/crossfire or something?

here is the thing, the witcher 3 was downgraded visually. most probably due to consoles. but the question is, just how much bigger and better was the game overall due to the fact that CD project knew they would get more profits from consoles? did they increase the scale of the game and quests because the install base for their game was much much bigger now?

i honestly doubt if it was just on PC it would have been the same game, i doubt a game like the witcher 3 can be profitable by just its PC version.