By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming Discussion - CD Projekt comment on removed Witcher 3 PC-PS4 comparison video(PC Version Downgraded?)

Chazore on 18 May 2015
Mummelmann said:

The sad part is that this site has a lot of terrific PC gamers, but some aren't very active, and I imagine that these attitudes we're seeing here are part of the reason.

yeah, I think there's quite a few cool PC dudes on here (you included), I just want the community to grow on here so we can get more info, more technical disuccions and hardware/software data but so far the only data we're getting on here most of the time is used and poised to show the bad aspects of PC gaming and it;s used by those who don't want to invest in the system but prove why they shouldn't need to (honestly I just don't care what people like as long as they don't do what we're seeing).

I think at some point we're going to have to have a thread to discuss the future of the rather small PC community on here because it's definitely not going to get bigger the way things are currently.



Step right up come on in, feel the buzz in your veins, I'm like an chemical electrical right into your brain and I'm the one who killed the Radio, soon you'll all see

So pay up motherfuckers you belong to "V"

Around the Network
TheJimbo1234 on 19 May 2015
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 .



fps_d0minat0r on 19 May 2015
Arkaign said:
fps_d0minat0r said:

 


 

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.

The thing is that PC games can have really long legs, particularly if they scale well. It's nice to see games that offer what may seem like excessive settings (ironically like the Witcher 2 'ubersampling') because the hardware WILL come.

Ideally you have :

Low end settings in the realm of somewhat playable with mediocre hardware

Midrange settings in the realm of PS4/X1

High end settings that go beyond the current top end cards

We have 390X, Pascal, sub-20nm, all kinds of stuff coming soon, so leaving in the better graphics options for PC wouldn't have been a bad idea. For now maybe only high end people could run it, but HBM + dieshrinks and a midrange card in 2016 might make a 980 look slow, while a high end card in mid/late 2016 will laugh at today's SLI/CF stuff.

At least downsampling in drivers from 4K to 1080 and mods can help. Skyrim stock vs. Skyrim heavily modded is incredibly impressive for example.

Now if they simply didn't have the resources to live up to their 2013 goals, fine. Regardless of source (MS, Sony, CDPR, whoever), I'm REALLY tired at this point of the bullshots and intentionally misleading 'early' footage, trailers, etc. Yes, anyone who knows the industry knows to expect it, but it's still annoying. What's wrong with a little honesty? I remember the X1 Forza 5 gameplay they had on the Jimmy Fallon show, and we came to find out later that was the pre-downgrade version running on a ludicrous PC, with the final version being downgraded pretty heavily. Sony has done similar I'm sure, and it just seems to be too tempting for people to BS as much as they can get away with until they get closer to release, and then : "Oh, it's not downgraded!".

True, but once again, its not worth investing in futureproofing the game since the number of people playing it on upgraded PC's years down the line will be very small compared to everyone that wants a good running version of the game right now. The priority should be the people buying the game now, not the people who will buy this 5 years later because its $1 flash sale and they are curious to see how far it can push their hardware.



TheJimbo1234 on 19 May 2015
fps_d0minat0r said:
Arkaign said:
fps_d0minat0r said:

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.

The thing is that PC games can have really long legs, particularly if they scale well. It's nice to see games that offer what may seem like excessive settings (ironically like the Witcher 2 'ubersampling') because the hardware WILL come.

Ideally you have :

Low end settings in the realm of somewhat playable with mediocre hardware

Midrange settings in the realm of PS4/X1

High end settings that go beyond the current top end cards

We have 390X, Pascal, sub-20nm, all kinds of stuff coming soon, so leaving in the better graphics options for PC wouldn't have been a bad idea. For now maybe only high end people could run it, but HBM + dieshrinks and a midrange card in 2016 might make a 980 look slow, while a high end card in mid/late 2016 will laugh at today's SLI/CF stuff.

At least downsampling in drivers from 4K to 1080 and mods can help. Skyrim stock vs. Skyrim heavily modded is incredibly impressive for example.

Now if they simply didn't have the resources to live up to their 2013 goals, fine. Regardless of source (MS, Sony, CDPR, whoever), I'm REALLY tired at this point of the bullshots and intentionally misleading 'early' footage, trailers, etc. Yes, anyone who knows the industry knows to expect it, but it's still annoying. What's wrong with a little honesty? I remember the X1 Forza 5 gameplay they had on the Jimmy Fallon show, and we came to find out later that was the pre-downgrade version running on a ludicrous PC, with the final version being downgraded pretty heavily. Sony has done similar I'm sure, and it just seems to be too tempting for people to BS as much as they can get away with until they get closer to release, and then : "Oh, it's not downgraded!".

True, but once again, its not worth investing in futureproofing the game since the number of people playing it on upgraded PC's years down the line will be very small compared to everyone that wants a good running version of the game right now. The priority should be the people buying the game now, not the people who will buy this 5 years later because its $1 flash sale and they are curious to see how far it can push their hardware.


That's just garbage.

Firstly, CDPR only have this game series to sell ergo people will be playing it years down the line just like the Witcher 2 so this game series really has a good reason to be future proof. However a Titan X would trash this game at 1080p if it had been built properly. Heck, a 970 should. The fact is that this game has been downgraded because the engine is dire. It is clear that with how poorly it performs compared to its graphical fidelity the engine is just as bad as the Witcher 2's engine....which is no surprise. You are just looking for excuses on why not to be dissappointed for a game you have clealry been waiting sometime for.



fps_d0minat0r on 20 May 2015
TheJimbo1234 said:
fps_d0minat0r said:
Arkaign said:
fps_d0minat0r said:

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.

The thing is that PC games can have really long legs, particularly if they scale well. It's nice to see games that offer what may seem like excessive settings (ironically like the Witcher 2 'ubersampling') because the hardware WILL come.

Ideally you have :

Low end settings in the realm of somewhat playable with mediocre hardware

Midrange settings in the realm of PS4/X1

High end settings that go beyond the current top end cards

We have 390X, Pascal, sub-20nm, all kinds of stuff coming soon, so leaving in the better graphics options for PC wouldn't have been a bad idea. For now maybe only high end people could run it, but HBM + dieshrinks and a midrange card in 2016 might make a 980 look slow, while a high end card in mid/late 2016 will laugh at today's SLI/CF stuff.

At least downsampling in drivers from 4K to 1080 and mods can help. Skyrim stock vs. Skyrim heavily modded is incredibly impressive for example.

Now if they simply didn't have the resources to live up to their 2013 goals, fine. Regardless of source (MS, Sony, CDPR, whoever), I'm REALLY tired at this point of the bullshots and intentionally misleading 'early' footage, trailers, etc. Yes, anyone who knows the industry knows to expect it, but it's still annoying. What's wrong with a little honesty? I remember the X1 Forza 5 gameplay they had on the Jimmy Fallon show, and we came to find out later that was the pre-downgrade version running on a ludicrous PC, with the final version being downgraded pretty heavily. Sony has done similar I'm sure, and it just seems to be too tempting for people to BS as much as they can get away with until they get closer to release, and then : "Oh, it's not downgraded!".

True, but once again, its not worth investing in futureproofing the game since the number of people playing it on upgraded PC's years down the line will be very small compared to everyone that wants a good running version of the game right now. The priority should be the people buying the game now, not the people who will buy this 5 years later because its $1 flash sale and they are curious to see how far it can push their hardware.


That's just garbage.

Firstly, CDPR only have this game series to sell ergo people will be playing it years down the line just like the Witcher 2 so this game series really has a good reason to be future proof. However a Titan X would trash this game at 1080p if it had been built properly. Heck, a 970 should. The fact is that this game has been downgraded because the engine is dire. It is clear that with how poorly it performs compared to its graphical fidelity the engine is just as bad as the Witcher 2's engine....which is no surprise. You are just looking for excuses on why not to be dissappointed for a game you have clealry been waiting sometime for.

You're still missing the point that whenever you use the words like 'dire', its coming from the perspective of someone that wants to max out his top of the range hardware, which not many people have, and thats the point im making. I dont see why any dev should waste their resources towards a number of gamers who will contribute the least in software revenue.

And the game runs above 60fps average on 1080p and ultra settings with a titan, so I'm not sure what you mean there.

http://www.gamersnexus.net/game-bench/1947-witcher-3-pc-graphics-card-fps-benchmark

I've been curious about this game but im not a huge rpg fan and not getting this anytime soon. I'm just fed up of a certain vocal minority who continually ask that devs should commit a disproportionate amount of resources on them and then downplay the game (which most people are happy with how it performs on their hardware) when they dont meet this selfish and unrealistic expectation.



Around the Network
TheJimbo1234 on 20 May 2015
fps_d0minat0r said:
TheJimbo1234 said:
fps_d0minat0r said:
Arkaign said:
fps_d0minat0r said:

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.

The thing is that PC games can have really long legs, particularly if they scale well. It's nice to see games that offer what may seem like excessive settings (ironically like the Witcher 2 'ubersampling') because the hardware WILL come.

Ideally you have :

Low end settings in the realm of somewhat playable with mediocre hardware

Midrange settings in the realm of PS4/X1

High end settings that go beyond the current top end cards

We have 390X, Pascal, sub-20nm, all kinds of stuff coming soon, so leaving in the better graphics options for PC wouldn't have been a bad idea. For now maybe only high end people could run it, but HBM + dieshrinks and a midrange card in 2016 might make a 980 look slow, while a high end card in mid/late 2016 will laugh at today's SLI/CF stuff.

At least downsampling in drivers from 4K to 1080 and mods can help. Skyrim stock vs. Skyrim heavily modded is incredibly impressive for example.

Now if they simply didn't have the resources to live up to their 2013 goals, fine. Regardless of source (MS, Sony, CDPR, whoever), I'm REALLY tired at this point of the bullshots and intentionally misleading 'early' footage, trailers, etc. Yes, anyone who knows the industry knows to expect it, but it's still annoying. What's wrong with a little honesty? I remember the X1 Forza 5 gameplay they had on the Jimmy Fallon show, and we came to find out later that was the pre-downgrade version running on a ludicrous PC, with the final version being downgraded pretty heavily. Sony has done similar I'm sure, and it just seems to be too tempting for people to BS as much as they can get away with until they get closer to release, and then : "Oh, it's not downgraded!".

True, but once again, its not worth investing in futureproofing the game since the number of people playing it on upgraded PC's years down the line will be very small compared to everyone that wants a good running version of the game right now. The priority should be the people buying the game now, not the people who will buy this 5 years later because its $1 flash sale and they are curious to see how far it can push their hardware.


That's just garbage.

Firstly, CDPR only have this game series to sell ergo people will be playing it years down the line just like the Witcher 2 so this game series really has a good reason to be future proof. However a Titan X would trash this game at 1080p if it had been built properly. Heck, a 970 should. The fact is that this game has been downgraded because the engine is dire. It is clear that with how poorly it performs compared to its graphical fidelity the engine is just as bad as the Witcher 2's engine....which is no surprise. You are just looking for excuses on why not to be dissappointed for a game you have clealry been waiting sometime for.

You're still missing the point that whenever you use the words like 'dire', its coming from the perspective of someone that wants to max out his top of the range hardware, which not many people have, and thats the point im making. I dont see why any dev should waste their resources towards a number of gamers who will contribute the least in software revenue.

And the game runs above 60fps average on 1080p and ultra settings with a titan, so I'm not sure what you mean there.

http://www.gamersnexus.net/game-bench/1947-witcher-3-pc-graphics-card-fps-benchmark

I've been curious about this game but im not a huge rpg fan and not getting this anytime soon. I'm just fed up of a certain vocal minority who continually ask that devs should commit a disproportionate amount of resources on them and then downplay the game (which most people are happy with how it performs on their hardware) when they dont meet this selfish and unrealistic expectation.


Who said max out? Max out hardware is in the realms of Pixar animation; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w6EMc6eu3c8   That is Titan X maxed out. But I'm just asking for basic next gen graphics andf features...which the Witcher 3 has none. Hell, it doesn't even have tessellation!

Also for fps to go from 60 to 14 shows the engine is terrible. It is clearly not optimised and buggy to have such drop in frame rates. The website even says that!

As I have said from the start, you clealry have no idea just how much performance can be harnessed from a mid range card, and just how cheap higher end cards are. You are just saying that people should be happy with these poor graphics and dire optimisation because gpus are expensive and no one has good pcs....even though gpus are now very cheap, very powerful, and lots of people can run  games at better fps which look far better than this junk. Star Citizen,  looks far and runs far better, and that is a startup studio and in alpha. So what is CDPR excuse? Oh right, they can't program as shown by their last engine and this new one.