what most don't get is that this is the problem with PC centric development. if the PC platform is your primary development platform, focus is usually on rendering tech and scale and not on implementation and optimization cause well, you can just brute force your way through your code with infinitely more powerful hardware. 

hence you will see games like these suffer from all kinds of chronic performance issues on consoles. then a game like horizon comes along and people start to wonder how what they did was possible. 

It's not just performance issues though (although the excruciating load times were definately off-puting)
Broken quests to the point the game was unfinishable for some people at launch, unfinished unwieldy inventory system, unrefined control system, and tons of other bugs. That has nothing to do with designing for PC, the game was simply not finished. It was a playable beta at launch.
Luckily the patches were fast enough to solve the biggest game breaking bugs before I got there, yet I still ended with unsatisfying glitchy final quests, a couple of unfinishable side quests and some quests that were somehow marked as failed while completing them much earlier. (at least those didn't affect my ending, yet for some people it did) And tons of small and bigger glitches along the way to the point of having to reload a couple times or getting killed by spawning in the air after getting too close to the map edge.

It was still a good experience overall with excellent writing in places, yet the whole felt very rough.

http://thewitcher.com/news/view/906
When we release the most important game in our studio’s history, we must be absolutely sure that we did everything we could to limit any bugs to a level that will allow you to enjoy the game thoroughly.
Failed.

Thats not my experience at all. Its clear the game acts up in some situations and some people get a terrible experience and that sucks but more often than not when they complain its as if they've played a different game entirely. Playable beta? Nope, not for me at least and I've been playing from day 1.

I don't know, I have a list of objections when it comes to Witcher 3, but I have to say I had no technical issues, inventory system was not best, but definitely not bad and I had no problems with any of the quests.

For me, despite some things that I didn't like and some design flaws, the game was very enjoyable, and calling it Beta is really not fair.

People are currently focused on worse peformance with 1.07, but, honestly, I haven't noticed that on PC...what is very noticable immidiatelly is different handling of the horse (Roach is now quite clever in avoiding trees), better handling of Geralt in alternative mode (not that standard was bad) and pinning recipes for shopping - none of these were anywhere near game-breakers in unpatched game, so nice of them for listening to community.

Waiting for expansion, I hope they had time to learn from mistakes and make it even better than the main game - W3 is a good game, but I do miss some stuff from W2.

Maybe Beta sounds too harsh but any program with changelogs the size of witcher's 1.07 patch is not a finished product. The game definitely could have used more time. The witcher 2 was in a much better state at release, and I actually had less issues with Fallout NV. (Skyrim was a mess though, had to restart the game every 15 to 20 minutes in the end and play with autosave disabled to get it to keep working)

I didn't run into anything preventing me from completing the game, but that's a pretty low bar to set and it even failed that for many people.
we must be absolutely sure that we did everything we could to limit any bugs to a level that will allow you to enjoy the game thoroughly.
They failed to do that. Unless the meaning of thoroughly has changed and you enjoy glitchy cameras clipping through scenery, getting stuck on the terrain and winning fights because of pathing bugs. I still enjoyed the game a lot, but there were also plenty times it felt unfinished and not well thought out.

I really hope Obsidian does not do this. Witcher 3 and Arkahm Knight were bad enough. I just want a AAA to operate as such for all gamers on all platforms. Having only one specific version work on one platform severley damages the overall qualtiy of the game itself. If anything, devs. must understand that gimping others for various reasons isn't going to work anymore as it did with last generation consoles.

if you want more content simple buy more games, you can buy used PS3 games for 5 bucks now. I much rather have an expeirence which is fileld with quality and isnt broken or has any kind of stripped out content. Bloodborne for example is such a game. Witcher 3 has many things but these many things you have played better in many games before.

I bought Bloodborne. It would appear FS are not nearly as "bad" as CDPR.

Also, LOL, why would I buy more games for old consoles just to match the content of one next gen game? You're just making my case for me. It's like those old Total cereal add where it takes 12 bowls of generic bran cereal to match the colon cleansing prowess of one bowl of Total.