Are PCs holding back the console experience? (Witcher3 spawn)

[Inuhanyou]

are you kidding ?! Like to back that claim up?

Last I looked , most games are deved on PC's

Every game is deved on PC, because they are all x86 anyway. But my point is the baseline for development in the current gen is the PS4's HW this gen, DICE goes by this, Rocksteady goes by this, the list goes on. Just like the 360's base HW was the limit last gen, even though PC's were tens of times more powerful than the 360 late in the gen.

Acting like high end PC's are going to be the baseline for development on AAA games is just unreasonable.

 

[liquidboy]

PS4's HW this gen.

What does that even mean?!

8 core CPU, 8GB ram, GCN radeon CU's ?! I haven't heard Dice come out and say anything of the sort, ive seen slides from devs talk about "engine optimized for" and listing general HW specs ... BUT nothing that explicitly mentions PS4 being the gold standard

 

[Inuhanyou]

It means that the current gen consoles are the baseline for what is possible in AAA titles, and expecting devs to focus on high end PC HW as its own subset is unreasonable thinking. Its always going to be an upscale for ever growing PC HW because development and market realities demand that.

 

[L. Scofield]

So, CD Projekt RED should release a high-end game similar to the 2013 reveal... so that 99.9% of PC gamers should bitch about poor performance, system crashes, and whatever else PC gamers aren't satisfied with?

Or

Should they release something that actually works across all platforms and include the needed enhanced scaling features for PC users?


As an FYI: I own a Titan Z and Titan X (SLI setup on the Titan X rig) rigs... and I'm very positive what was shown during the 2013 reveal, wasn't all gameplay footage. More like, a controlled slice of gaming, with very scripted cinematic views, along with some fancy offline lighting/shadowing and so on. Something that I find hard my rigs could run in realtime at 1080p/60fps synced or 4K/30fps synced. Hell, GTA V is making current high-end rigs buckle under pressure.

So what you're saying is that PC games should be artificially limited so that gamers with moderate-power systems don't feel bad about the size of their e-penis.

I say no thanks to that, let them cry as much as they please, progress shouldn't be hindered by the wailing of spoiled babies.

As a said effect of this, I don't need to buy a remastered version because I already have it. Play it first on moderate settings and once I upgrade my machine I can play it again at max (or even modded) settings.

 

[Shortbread]

So what you're saying is that PC games should be artificially limited so that gamers with moderate-power systems don't feel bad about the size of their e-penis.

The funny thing is, the only ones that are crying (like babies) are the ones trying to flex their high-end e-penis. Personally, TW3 looks good on all platforms, especially on the PC. What's going to be funny all those high-end cry babies claiming downgrade, are going to be crying performance issues or scaling back settings when released.

Anyhow, returning this thread back to console gamers...

 

[ultragpu]

I think this version of TW3 is good enough for the majority, which is where the bulk of CDPR's profit would come from. So that by next gen they can do an UHD remaster of TW3 with the original foliage quality, lighting etc etc on the PS5, Xtwo, Titan balls to the wall Xers. Not to mention the high end PC community could always do their own mod so what's the concern?

 

[Deleted member 11852]

Or they can do like Rock* and treat PC gamers well, especially since up until recently that's what they had been doing. But now that consoles are also one of the main development platforms (The Witcher 2 was PC and then eventually ported to consoles) we're stuck with shitty (crass hyperbole, it's not shitty, just not as good) console limitations. Again unlike The Witcher 2, which at high settings made most computers beg for mercy at the time.

I refer you to numerous Digital Foundry multi-platform game comparisons where the quality of console's graphics generally translate to High or Very Quality equivilient settings on PC - obviously at a lower resolution and framerate,both of which scale well. This demonstrates that most games are written to support PCs of a hardware configurable that even can't match current consoles by at least a couple (Low, Medium) rounds of default setting options.

And you're attributing this to consoles and not underpowered PCs? Please..

 

[Cjail]

Where does the idea that PCs have no limitations come from anyway?!

EDIT

Spoiler

If it wasn't clear enough I am kidding, in part at least

 

[Arwin]

PCs certainly have been holding back the console experience in the past, what with developers being limited by whatever DirectX supported. On PC there is a minimum spec and a maximum spec you need to support in your art. This is one of the biggest bottlenecks. Both the highest and lowest levels of art are determined by the hardware out there that can run the game with those levels of quality. As the console generation gets older, they will offer a very large number of hardware that can run a game only with lower levels of art/assets/physics etc, and that can certainly hold back PC titles.

Right now though, the consoles are higher than most developers will want to target if they were limited to supporting the PC space, and therefore I think we are again in a situation where PC is holding back consoles more than the other way around, in the sense that if you were to develop a game, in order to have a large enough audience, you would target to support minimum hardware far lower than PS4 or XboxOne.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Both the highest and lowest levels of art are determined by the hardware out there that can run the game with those levels of quality.

I get the sentiment from some posters in this thread that the high end art of the PC actually shouldn't be defined by the current hardware, and devs should target a limitless ceiling knowing that, one day, people will actually have PCs that can play it, which will be the rare few with monster rigs now and every Joe in 10 years' time.

I suppose it all comes down to the economics of developing for different targets. If CDPR could have made something more spectacular on high end PCs without incurring significant extra costs, then they have let the PC side down. But if it would cost significantly more to target that higher performance target, especially when the audience perhaps is somewhat limited, then it doesn't make financial sense to target anything beyond the common denominator. In that case, those grumbling will be stuck grumbling. Like having extremely large feet, you can't expect businesses to offer the same range of merchandise to you when you fit outside the bell curve defining financially viable products. You'll just have to watch those with average sized feet getting full access to the range of footwear and you, Mr. Big Foot, making do with the 2 or 3 styles made to suit you. Or you go bespoke which I think is what modding enables (see Oblivion).

I see both views being expressed here - that improved PC experience costs too much, and that CDPR should be targeting a higher end machine as if the cost is irrelevant. An objective answer, determining who's right, would need access to the financial, I guess.

 

[Cjail]

I say PC is "held back" because not enough gamers have the best GPU/CPU available on the market
Yeah I point the finger at YOU tightwad PC gamers, if you all had 6 GPU and 4 CPU in you machines you would be in gaming heaven with GCI graphics but NOOO you have to buy just one GPU
It's your fault PC gamers if PC gaming is not as good as it could be.

Spoiler

If it wasn't clear enough I am kidding, at least in part

 

[Deleted member 13524]

I get the sentiment from some posters in this thread that the high end art of the PC actually shouldn't be defined by the current hardware, and devs should target a limitless ceiling knowing that, one day, people will actually have PCs that can play it, which will be the rare few with monster rigs now and every Joe in 10 years' time.

10 years' time sounds a bit exaggerated, but does the perspective of an AAA game that will only be maxed out in 3/4 years sound that bad in the PC market?

Because to be honest, Crysis 1 certainly did bring Crytek a lot of fame and free publicity (and sales!) when it released as a game that could only be maxed out sometime in the future. "But will it play Crysis" became a longtime running meme.
Plus, the game is almost 8 years old but it still looks awesome today, and Warhead is still a part of the benchmark suites for dozens of websites, representing the pinnacle of what DX10 is capable of.

Chris Roberts has claimed that he wants Star Citizen to be the next "Will it play Crysis?" game. But Chris Roberts wants the game to be the next everything, which makes me wonder if it'll even become the next anything-at-all.

The Witcher 3 had the conditions to become the next Crysis. They certainly seemed to have the right assets for it.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Because to be honest, Crysis 1 certainly did bring Crytek a lot of fame and free publicity (and sales!) when it released as a game that could only be maxed out sometime in the future. "But will it play Crysis" became a longtime running meme.

It possibly worked for Crysis, but that's because it was exceptional. If it was the norm that every PC game crippled high-end PCs upon release, would that help inflate sales for all of them, certainly to the point of offsetting the costs of implementing those uber-high end features?

 

[Deleted member 13524]

It possibly worked for Crysis, but that's because it was exceptional. If it was the norm that every PC game crippled high-end PCs upon release, would that help inflate sales for all of them, certainly to the point of offsetting the costs of implementing those uber-high end features?

It could never be the norm. Only some AAA games with AAA assets could ever aspire to do it. I think Witcher 3 is one of those few games.
For example, why did they seemingly lock the maximum draw distance to be the same as the consoles? Why not take larger or less compressed textures? Why not a slider controlling tesselation levels?
They could have an "Ultra" presetting with realistic settings for a 2015 high-end PC, but then allow some "advanced settings" to go beyond the Ultra spec.
Croteam allowed that with Serious Sam, for example.

As for either these games inflating sales for high-end PC components, namely graphics cards, then yes. I think they would.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

For example, why did they seemingly lock the maximum draw distance to be the same as the consoles? Why not take larger or less compressed textures? Why not a slider controlling tesselation levels?

Testing purposes? There's still a cost involved in implementing even a sliding scale.

Is it really more likely that CDPR gimped the PC version to prevent consoles looking bad rather than avoided incurring extra costs for little apparent gain? How much more money would they have made if they implemented all the high-end features uber PC gamers are wanting? How many of these gamers who were going to buy Witcher to play an expansive open-world RPG will now refuse to buy the game because it's not pushing their GPU as they imagine it should be pushed?

As for either these games inflating sales for high-end PC components, namely graphics cards, then yes. I think they would.

Unless CDPR get a cut of those hardware sales, it's of no interest or benefit to them. I was talking about increasing software sales of Witcher 3 thanks to better (more expensive) high-end graphics.

 

[Deleted member 13524]

Testing purposes? There's still a cost involved in implementing even a sliding scale.

I'll agree with the other options but I can't see how a draw distance slider would take any significant amount of time and cost..

Is it really more likely that CDPR gimped the PC version to prevent consoles looking bad rather than avoided incurring extra costs for little apparent gain? How much more money would they have made if they implemented all the high-end features uber PC gamers are wanting? How many of these gamers who were going to buy Witcher to play an expansive open-world RPG will now refuse to buy the game because it's not pushing their GPU as they imagine it should be pushed?

You'll see a vocal minority of angry people either way, whatever you do.
But looking at the sales of Crysis 1 vs. Crysis 2 and 3, I'm thinking that most PC gamers look at demanding games as a challenge, making them spending more money on faster hardware, trying higher overclocks, better cooling, etc.
Unless, of course, there are contemporary games that look better and run faster. That way, people will just assume the game is badly optimized. Though I don't think that will be as common as the previous generation, since the hardware is now much more similar and low-level optimizations probably won't differ that much (except for EDRAM stuff in the XBOne, maybe).

Unless CDPR get a cut of those hardware sales, it's of no interest or benefit to them. I was talking about increasing software sales of Witcher 3 thanks to better (more expensive) high-end graphics.

Maybe it doesn't affect sales much during release, but I believe a game that looks better as the years go by gets to sell more units in the long range. I can't tell if it's worth the extra investment, though.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

I suppose it all comes down to the economics of developing for different targets. If CDPR could have made something more spectacular on high end PCs without incurring significant extra costs, then they have let the PC side down. But if it would cost significantly more to target that higher performance target, especially when the audience perhaps is somewhat limited, then it doesn't make financial sense to target anything beyond the common denominator.

I'll try and find a link but CDPR have said on more than one occasions, and quite recently somewhere, that the Witcher 3 is a massive project for them given the relatviely small team working on it. I guess this is relative to other huge open world games like GTA V, WATCH-DOGS, Far Cry and Assassin's Creed all of which have teams which absolutely dwarf the Polish developer.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

I'll agree with the other options but I can't see how a draw distance slider would take any significant amount of time and cost..

Without knowing how the REDengine works, this is not a given. Once the modders get hold of REDkit, we'll see how viable longer draw distances are. Certainly compared to most open world games, even on PC, the Witcher 3 looks crazy good with great draw distances.

But maybe CDPR decided that to encourage exploration, they would limit draw distances to a mile - or whatever it is.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

I'll agree with the other options but I can't see how a draw distance slider would take any significant amount of time and cost.

Rate of streaming assets? You'd have to load in more (significantly more on a 180 degree turn) which'd choke the streaming engine and need a solution to accommodate like more precaching.

It's pretty easy to generalise situations and make assumptions (I do it all the time! See Tomb Raider exclusivity discussion) but there can also be clear legitimate reasons for what seem odd choices. It's best to wait for info rather than make spurious claims, although that flies in the face of general human nature.

 

[McHuj]

Do we know to what PC settings, the PS4 corresponds to?