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

Forums - Gaming - The Witcher 3 PC Ultra vs PS4 [almost no difference?]

sc94597 on 17 May 2015
vivster said:
Mr.Playstation said:

Yet Pc gamers still want to debate that a PC build can be cheaper. A Pc has it's advantages ( and lots of them ) but price isn't one if you REALLY want the best graphical experiances.

You're confusing "PC gamers" with "morons". No one in their right mind says that. There is no hardware that beats the price/performance ratio of consoles. Because no one except the big 2 is stupid enough to sell hardware at a loss. Not to mention that even if you have the same specs as a console on PC, games will have the worse performance.

This whole price debate is ridiculous. Best price/performance ratio does not make one product inherently superior over the other. Features decide which product is the right one for an individual person.


I think he is confounding two different thing.  What PC gamers argue is that the long-run cost of Pc hardware+ games+zero online fees is cheaper.



Around the Network
LipeJJ on 17 May 2015

As always, I can't see a BIG difference between PS4 and PC. I guess only the most avid fans care for these minor differences. Every version look good, even the XB1's version.



Bet with Teeqoz for 2 weeks of avatar and sig control that Super Mario Odyssey would ship more than 7m on its first 2 months. The game shipped 9.07m, so I won

Mr.Playstation on 17 May 2015
sc94597 said:
vivster said:
Mr.Playstation said:

Yet Pc gamers still want to debate that a PC build can be cheaper. A Pc has it's advantages ( and lots of them ) but price isn't one if you REALLY want the best graphical experiances.

You're confusing "PC gamers" with "morons". No one in their right mind says that. There is no hardware that beats the price/performance ratio of consoles. Because no one except the big 2 is stupid enough to sell hardware at a loss. Not to mention that even if you have the same specs as a console on PC, games will have the worse performance.

This whole price debate is ridiculous. Best price/performance ratio does not make one product inherently superior over the other. Features decide which product is the right one for an individual person.


I think he is confounding two different thing.  What PC gamers argue is that the long-run cost of Pc hardware+ games+zero online fees is cheaper.

It isn't, I said in that post that price isn't and will never be one of Pc's advantages, it's got many more advantages but price isn't one of them. Also let's not make it seem as if we've never heared the argument " I can build a $400 Pc which will outperfom the PS4" whether or not their morons is debatable.



Send a Friend Request On PSN :P

SubiyaCryolite on 17 May 2015

Wait for digital foundry to give a proper analysis. All the high quality 1080p60 PC videos I've seen from Gamersyde look awesome and I feel a lot of people are exaggerating. Prime example http://www.gamersyde.com/hqstream_the_witcher_3_wild_hunt_precious_cargo_gameplay-34558_en.html



I predict that the Wii U will sell a total of 18 million units in its lifetime. 

The NX will be a 900p machine

Legend11 on 17 May 2015

How many more threads of this fanboy pap are we going to get? Just like in the Xbox One vs PS4 version thread there's so little difference (like pretty much all multiplatform comparisons between those two) that it's basically insignificant. The truth is that except for a few games that really take advantage of PCs most of them offer pretty much the same experience.

My advice is to buy the system with the exclusives you want and don't allow yourself to be bamboozled into thinking the PS4 (or even the PC) is so powerful that it offers any kind of significant difference in gameplay for the vast majority of AAA games. Both the PS4 and Xbox One are medium range PCs at best but you know what, the law of diminishing returns right now means that it doesn't really matter.



Around the Network
vivster on 17 May 2015
sc94597 said:

I think he is confounding two different thing.  What PC gamers argue is that the long-run cost of Pc hardware+ games+zero online fees is cheaper.

Price is irrelevant. No one goes for PC over consoles because there are no online fees or because games are cheaper. It's just a stupid argument for people who need reinforcement for their choice.

We can sit here all day and count all the pros and cons but that only shows that there are a lot more things to consider than raw data.



If you demand respect or gratitude for your volunteer work, you're doing volunteering wrong.

iLikeEggs on 17 May 2015
vivster said:
sc94597 said:

I think he is confounding two different thing.  What PC gamers argue is that the long-run cost of Pc hardware+ games+zero online fees is cheaper.

Price is irrelevant. No one goes for PC over consoles because there are no online fees or because games are cheaper. It's just a stupid argument for people who need reinforcement for their choice.

We can sit here all day and count all the pros and cons but that only shows that there are a lot more things to consider than raw data.

But that is exactly why I built my PC in Feb 2014. I have over 200 games and have spent a total of 400 dollars on them. Also, I can play Titanfall online for FREE and at better reslution and fps than consoles. How is that not a reason for people to go for PC? It's a perfectly valid and worthwhile endeavor.

The same can be said that you are bashing the PC-goers decisions in order to validate your own console of choice that has online fees and more expensive games and worse sales. (I own a pc, wii u, ps4, btw).



Hi

SubiyaCryolite on 17 May 2015
Mr.Playstation said:
sc94597 said:


I think he is confounding two different thing.  What PC gamers argue is that the long-run cost of Pc hardware+ games+zero online fees is cheaper.

It isn't, I said in that post that price isn't and will never be one of Pc's advantages, it's got many more advantages but price isn't one of them. Also let's not make it seem as if we've never heared the argument " I can build a $400 Pc which will outperfom the PS4" whether or not their morons is debatable.

Online::

PS4 == £40.00 annually (£200.00 or $315.00 over 5 years)

PC == £0.0 annually (£0.00 or $0.00 over 5 years) :p

 

Game prices at launch::

PS4 == £44.00 (10 games = 440) (100 games == £4,400.00 or $6,924.00)

PC == £35.00 (10 games = 350) (100 games == £3,500 or $5,500.00)

 

While PC hardware will always be more expensive the price of software is a HUGE advantage to me, not paying for online also helps. Heck PC games are even cheaper than Wii U games and often on par with 3DS games (dafaq) in the UK. Truth be told in my part of the world consoles are actually more expensive, even when excluding piracy.



I predict that the Wii U will sell a total of 18 million units in its lifetime. 

The NX will be a 900p machine

teigaga on 17 May 2015
OttoniBastos said:

That is what devs call "streamline development".

Developer don't want to have different builds for each machine 'cause that would require more people,and more people = more money.

Basically they have one set of assets(textures,models,animation,etc...) and most of it NEEDS to work on all platforms.In the worst case scenario,they would rezise the textures lower in order to fit consoles RAM(like last gen).

In most cases though,they only change IQ features like LOD,AA,AF,Resolution or Framerate cause that doesn't require assets modification.

The reason why PC version doensn't look like the teaser is because that would force them to have a build with exclusive assets for PC and other for consoles.And everytime they created a new place in the game they would have to create one version for PC and other for consoles,otherwise people on PC would complaint about quality consistency(aka why place A looks so good and place B looks so flat?).

I can understand why they pushed the graphics bad,i really do,but i can't stand for bullshots.

 

Sony,MS,Nintendo and other publishers like square enix love to announce games too early with Teach demos or "ingame footage" before they actually test to see if that is doable.They need to learn how to keep the mouth shut.

Just read several "insider" reports that elaborate on what you're saying, I guess its time to accept that these consoles are weak. Honestly the first time its ever felt like this so early in a gen. More then ever I'm hoping someone comes to our saviour, either Microsoft abandoning the Xbox One early for a new backward compatible system or Nintendo doing the unexpected and delivering a beast with the NX. Anyway the game looks merely ok now, if the GPU was the bottleneck for console I think I might be one of those crazy people who would take better graphics over better resolution not that 720p downgrade would have made a huge difference here.

Hopefully at E3 third parties will prove that they can actually deliver next graphics on PS4/X1. So far I've seen a notable but dissapointing half step



Ruler on 17 May 2015
teigaga said:
OttoniBastos said:

That is what devs call "streamline development".

Developer don't want to have different builds for each machine 'cause that would require more people,and more people = more money.

Basically they have one set of assets(textures,models,animation,etc...) and most of it NEEDS to work on all platforms.In the worst case scenario,they would rezise the textures lower in order to fit consoles RAM(like last gen).

In most cases though,they only change IQ features like LOD,AA,AF,Resolution or Framerate cause that doesn't require assets modification.

The reason why PC version doensn't look like the teaser is because that would force them to have a build with exclusive assets for PC and other for consoles.And everytime they created a new place in the game they would have to create one version for PC and other for consoles,otherwise people on PC would complaint about quality consistency(aka why place A looks so good and place B looks so flat?).

I can understand why they pushed the graphics bad,i really do,but i can't stand for bullshots.

 

Sony,MS,Nintendo and other publishers like square enix love to announce games too early with Teach demos or "ingame footage" before they actually test to see if that is doable.They need to learn how to keep the mouth shut.

Just read several "insider" reports that elaborate on what you're saying, I guess its time to accept that these consoles are weak. Honestly the first time its ever felt like this so early in a gen. More then ever I'm hoping someone comes to our saviour, either Microsoft abandoning the Xbox One early for a new backward compatible system or Nintendo doing the unexpected and delivering a beast with the NX. Anyway the game looks merely ok now, if the GPU was the bottleneck for console I think I might be one of those crazy people who would take better graphics over better resolution not that 720p downgrade would have made a huge difference here.

Hopefully at E3 third parties will prove that they can actually deliver next graphics on PS4/X1

How is the PS4 weak if Bloodborne looks better than the witcher in so many fields and uncharted 4 is also comming out and looks better than the witcher? Devolopers are to be blamed for programming still too CPU focused over the GPU.



Why i left PC gaming

 

(2015) Question for PS4 owners: if the situation would be reverse? would you still play on PS4?

(2015) The "I don't care PS4 is the most powerful console" thread