fps_d0minat0r said:
TheJimbo1234 said:
fps_d0minat0r said:
lol you still dont get it do you?
You are focusing too much on console vs pc to see anything else.
This thread is about the downgrade from a level of detail PC which the majority of gamers have wouldnt be capable of running.
Dont play the 'pc v console' card, when its really just <5% of PC gamers that are impacted by this downgrade because everyone else wouldnt have achieved that level of detail with their PC specifications, even if the game was released with those option settings.
Once again, I state that the only point in making here is that the revenue minority of high end PC gamers will generate for CD projeckt isnt enough for them to put the effort in when it would be more logical optimising the game to be best as it can on consoles, and optimised so more low-mid end PC gamers can get more from their hardware.
I dread the day when/if greater resources are allocated to PC elitists instead of the gamers who will account for the most revenue.
|
You are making most of these facts up. You have no idea what the average PC is capable running nowadays so stop assuming that they couldn't play this game as it looked. You are also ignoring the simple option of graphics settings. Can't run at ultra? Try low settings then.
Again, assuming that a) few high end gamers exist (which is wrong b) you have to be high end to play it how it was (even though I have said otherwise). You are now just making things up to justify why a brand new game should look pants.
|
ok let me ask you two questions.
1) What spec of PC do you think would be required to run the witcher 3 as it was originally showed, before the downgrade?
2) Take an educated guess as to how many PC gamers will have these builds.
My answers would be
1) atleast an i7/GTX970
2) the minority
Therefore, for the majority who dont have that, wont be disappointed by the 'downgrade' since they were not going to be able to play it at the higher setting anyway. When people bought expensive PC's that money went to hardware manufacturers, CD projeckt got nothing and therefore they dont owe it to you to make software that justifies your hardware purchase.
If you think it looks pants then fine, but most gamers know it runs as good as it can be on their hardware.
You speak as if PC gamers will just buy the game and most will set it to ultra and it will run ok because 'it looks pants' anyway. Thats not how it works.
|
Seeing that Star Citizen looks better then that on a 280X, I would assume that it should only need a 285 for 30fps, ultra, at 1080p
However, now the game is out I can brag - I was right. The engine is horrible optimised just as I called it. It is buggy, looks terrible, and runs like garbage. Either I'm some prophet able to see into the future or I just used common sense and looked at the WItcher 2....which was a dire engine etc.
So as always, it feels great to be right .
