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

[Deleted member 11852]

And if you wanted a custom resolution in a console game ?

Then you're shit out of luck but no console ever promised this. Isn't customisation to the user's preferences a PC raison d'être?

 

[homerdog]

Heh I can't think of a single PC game in the last 10 years where I had to edit a config file. Your experience with Windows 98 does not make for a strong argument.

I also think it's funny that the worst thread ever in the PC Gaming forum is a migration from the Console Forum. There's a reason I stay away from that god forsaken place.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

Heh I can't think of a single PC game in the last 10 years where I had to edit a config file. Your experience with Windows 98 does not make for a strong argument.

I game using Windows 7, I said my PC gaming experience started with Windows 98. This was in response to swaaye's post that editing config files ended with DOS. RollerCoaster Tycoon 3, which I bought through Steam, needs manually editing of config files to use custom resolutions. The Steam distribution of Fallout 3 has a common crash on Windows 7 that to fix, yes you guessed it, needs to you edit the config file. Want Skyrim to make the best use of your hardware? Edit the config files. The setting menus in most games give you the basic settings at best.

Maybe you've been lucky in the games you've bought, or the support those games had from their developers for your particular hardware, but this isn't the case for everybody

 

[Deleted member 13524]

Rollercoaster Tycoon 3 is almost 11 years old.
Fallout 3 is 7 years old but I don't remember ever having to edit a config file, which I played in the PC for some 100 hours or so.
Skyrim doesn't need anything done to a config file. Mods will do that for you, and they've never been easier to install.

We could keep arguing about how hard it was to play and properly configure PC games 7, 10 or 20 years ago, but it'd be useless if we're talking about the present (mid 2015).

Yes, if you play a 11-year old game, you may find some caveats. But the cool part is that a windows PC will play them.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

Consoles aren't sentient decision making beings though... There are reasons why the consoles have weak hardware, (one more so than the other) and there are reasons why multiplatform devs mostly target these as the base and PEOPLE made all of these decisions. Unfortunately many business realities override the wishes of people who have relatively high performance PC rigs like me and many of you. I think blaming consoles is easy but in the end not making much sense. Imo it's not all that bad. Witcher 3 looks nice and PC-versions will still have some advantages. Perhaps this console gen don't last as long as the one before and VR could give PC some room to flex its muscles in the coming years.

I don't always blame them. In the case of Witcher 3, it is absolutely to blame. If not for the console version we'd have gotten the version that was originally shown. The problem for CDPR was that they couldn't afford to develop for 3 different platforms and maintain that quality. So they dumbed it down to the lowest common denominator. Not something they have had to do in the past. Not something they would have had to do if they focused on the PC first, as they did with The Witcher 2 or went PC only as with The Witcher.

It was the simultaneous release on all 3 platforms that basically fucked over (pardon the language) the PC version of the game. A staggered release they could have handled (ala Witcher 2), but a simultaneous one is what they couldn't handle. And so, bye-bye PC level graphics and hello console level graphics on PC.

Regards,
SB

 

[McHuj]

f not for the console version we'd have gotten the version that was originally shown.

Do you have any evidence to support that?

 

[Silent_Buddha]

Do you have any evidence to support that?

It was originally posted here in the other thread.

https://forum.beyond3d.com/posts/1843553/

They were well into development on PC at the time using pre-production console specs as a bit of a guideline. Playable versions were shown in 2013 on PC. Once they got their hands on final console units, they had to start dumbing down the graphics as the consoles couldn't handle it and they couldn't afford to develop 3 or even 2 different versions of everything (engine, assets, shaders, etc.).

So things like the nicely tesselated walls? Gone. Little things like blood droplets in the water? Gone. The wonderful particle system they had in place for fire and the smoke they generated? Gone.

Evidently reacting to the outrage generated by the PC/PS4 comparison video which CDPR had forcibly taken down (it was put up by a reviewer after the embargo was lifted, but then removed at the request of CDPR), they might be attempting to put some of the things back in.

Like hair that is at least as good as the PS4. And a longer draw distance. I doubt they'll be able to get even a fraction of the things taken out back into the PC version before release, however. But I guess something is better than nothing.

Regards,
SB

 

[McHuj]

Interesting, thanks. I hadn't read that.

 

[swaaye]

Nope, my PC gaming experience began with Windows 98 and I recall having to mess around with config files. I remember Rollercoaster Tycoon crashing because I had a gamepad attached and having to tweak config files for some idTech engine games. If you wanted a custom resolution in RollerCoaster Tycoon 3 then you had to edit the config file. The old .ini text files may mostly be XML files now (almost every Ubisoft game) but the need to dip into them to tweak settings beyond the UI is still a thing. There are websites dedicated this.

Apple platforms are no better, they just have different issues.

Well yeah the main advantage to the console world is the closed platform which allows games to be tailored perfectly to the system. Shit just works and should work as well as possible. That just can't happen on a general purpose platform with all sorts of hardware/software combos and crazy configuration variations. It's pretty darn solid these days though compared to the past.

When I said Apple was easier, I meant the DOS days. Editing system boot files and trying to squeeze some more conventional memory to run some game was ridiculous complexity and a crazy barrier to entry. Fiddling with jumpers. Ack. Win95 was a massive overhaul in ease of use for PC gaming. On the other hand, DOS PC gamers tended to be an audience of made up of fairly bright people. Not good for sales volume though!

 

[Deleted member 11852]

Rollercoaster Tycoon 3 is almost 11 years old.
Fallout 3 is 7 years old but I don't remember ever having to edit a config file, which I played in the PC for some 100 hours or so. Skyrim doesn't need anything done to a config file. Mods will do that for you, and they've never been easier to install.

Well I linked to whole wiki page of Far Cry 4 fixes above. What about disabling chromatic aberration in Dying Light? Are to prevent the loading crash in Unity?

I'm a PC gamer too but I don't pretend it's some kind of gaming utopia where problems don't happen and where, sometimes, to fix a problem or change a setting, I accept you have to file into the filesystem or config files.

 

[Arwin]

It was originally posted here in the other thread.

https://forum.beyond3d.com/posts/1843553/

They were well into development on PC at the time using pre-production console specs as a bit of a guideline. Playable versions were shown in 2013 on PC. Once they got their hands on final console units, they had to start dumbing down the graphics as the consoles couldn't handle it and they couldn't afford to develop 3 or even 2 different versions of everything (engine, assets, shaders, etc.).

So things like the nicely tesselated walls? Gone. Little things like blood droplets in the water? Gone. The wonderful particle system they had in place for fire and the smoke they generated? Gone.

Evidently reacting to the outrage generated by the PC/PS4 comparison video which CDPR had forcibly taken down (it was put up by a reviewer after the embargo was lifted, but then removed at the request of CDPR), they might be attempting to put some of the things back in.

Like hair that is at least as good as the PS4. And a longer draw distance. I doubt they'll be able to get even a fraction of the things taken out back into the PC version before release, however. But I guess something is better than nothing.

Regards,
SB

You could blame consoles, but if they didn't need the money to fund the game and stay in business once the game was released, don't you think they would have to do the same to reach a large enough market on PC? Or otherwise, wouldn't they have needed the Witcher III to be vastly less ambitious in the first place?

 

[pjbliverpool]

That would be a dumb argument, glad I didn't make it.

Kind of how I didn't make the argument of (to quote you) "the dumb assumption that without consoles people would buy gaming PCs instead," and yet for some reason you still felt the need to imply someone had made that argument and label them "dumb" for it. All I've said is that some (in fact I would guess many, possibly over 50%) of those console gamers would today be PC gamers if the consoles had never existed.

I think it's certain that the PC games market today would be different today if consoles waned around the dawn of 3D (PlayStation/Saturn/N64). For a start all those console games that wildly outsold PC games put a lot of money into the hands of developers and publishers.

So you're still holding to the argument that if the consoles didn't exist the market that they sold to (normal people like you and me who like to play computer games) would simply not exist rather than (in part) transitioning to the (in this fictional universe) the only platform in existence that allows people to play computer games?

That would also be a dumb argument. I didn't make that one either. Steam came in for Half-Life 2 in 2003. It may not even have existed if consoles hadn't happened because Steam was created to serve games made by developers and funded by publishers who made a lot of money from console game sales.

So rather than accept that in the complete (and totally artificial) absence of games consoles, the PC, or at least a steam machine-esq branch of it would have evolved into a more simplified/accessible gaming platform, you'd rather stick to the argument that the games industry simply wouldn't have developed much beyond what it was in the 90's at all due to a lack of market for computer games. Fine, let's agree to disagree on that one.

You'll need to elucidate because I don't see why this is obvious. Consoles made 3D gaming a cheap mainstream form of entertainment. Without those who knows where PC 3D gaming technology would be. It could certainly be far behind where it is now and with a smaller market.

You want me to elucidate on why it's obvious that if consoles didn't exist that the PC gaming market would be bigger than it is today? Seriously? So you are sticking to the argument that not a single console gamer in the world today would instead game on PC's if consoles had never existed?

And while we're on the subject, perhaps you would care to elucidate on why you think it's obvious that without consoles, PC gaming technology would be far behind what it is now? Last time I checked the progression of PC gaming technology had nothing to do with consoles. Even if I accept that gaming budgets would be much smaller in a PC only world, that doesn't in any way negate the requirement for more performant hardware or the general existence of moores law.

I see PC boundaries being pushed now. The Witcher 3 looks outstanding.

So the Witcher 3 is pushing the boundaries of what's graphically possible on a 970/980 and 290/290x class system with a fast quad core CPU?

And VR on PC will be better for having people working on VR on consoles because the more people trying to solve any given problem is better for everybody.

I don't doubt there will be some benefit but what Occulus and FB are doing in the VR space at the moment seems to be influenced very little by what's happening in the console market.

Consoles increase the size of the gaming market, thereby its profitability, beyond what we would have without those machines.

I've never denied that. What I am arguing though is that the difference between the market for computer games with and without the existence of consoles would not equal the current size of todays console gaming market. It's obvious (to me at least) that many of those gamers who today game on consoles would be gaming on PC's in a universe where consoles don't exist and thus the market for games, while no doubt smaller than today would still be large enough to support what we today consider as AAA cross platform development - especially since cross platform development wouldn't be required(reducing costs for developers) given there is only a single platform out there to develop for (not counting mobile).

 

[pjbliverpool]

Whether they would or wouldn't exist in another console-free timeline is a matter of science fiction, not forum discussion.

On this I agree.

This argument is pretty emotionally loaded and rather silly.

You're right it was emotionally loaded and out of place on B3D. It probably had something to do with being labelled "dumb" for putting forward an assumption/opinion (which was misrepresented anyway) which as you say above, is impossible to either prove or disprove. At least not without some kind of dimensional portal which allows us to peek into alternate realities. That would sure settle a lot of forum arguments.

 

[Billy Idol]

I personally wouldn't make it that easy for the developers and blame the consoles that the game does not hold what they promised back in 2013. This is way to forgiving.
I personally blame the developers and their publisher.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

Kind of how I didn't make the argument of (to quote you) "the dumb assumption that without consoles people would buy gaming PCs instead," and yet for some reason you still felt the need to imply someone had made that argument and label them "dumb" for it. All I've said is that some (in fact I would guess many, possibly over 50%) of those console gamers would today be PC gamers if the consoles had never existed.

I didn't intend to imply that, so apologies if you inferred it that way. I wanted to remove any assumption that any vacuum created by the lack of a console market would automatically mean it being filled by the PC space It could be largely consumed by the mobile gaming market. Or board games. Or bowling or football.

So you're still holding to the argument that if the consoles didn't exist the market that they sold to (normal people like you and me who like to play computer games) would simply not exist rather than (in part) transitioning to the (in this fictional universe) the only platform in existence that allows people to play computer games?

No, see the above comment. I'm saying console gamer wouldn't necessarily be PC gamers although some (like me) would I'm sure. But I'm also sure I'd be gaming less be buying a lot less games.

You want me to elucidate on why it's obvious that if consoles didn't exist that the PC gaming market would be bigger than it is today? Seriously?

I think it's 50/50 that the PC gaming market would be bigger but you said "far bigger". Why is it obvious it would be far bigger? I think you're assuming that the PC gaming market would be some approximation of what it is now, I'm not so sure. I think without the influence of console's simplicitly, PC gaming may have become even more complex and less user friendly.

So the Witcher 3 is pushing the boundaries of what's graphically possible on a 970/980 and 290/290x class system with a fast quad core CPU?

Oh I see, you're only tlaking about graphics. I was thinking about the game wider - a huge open world which unlike many past RPGs has no immersion-breaking engine limitations like loading screens when entering and leaving buildings. A huge open world RPG where decisions have subtle but meaninful consequences. But I guess this depends on where your priorities are. For me the gane itself is primary, graphics are great but they won't make a bad or flawed game good.

 

[homerdog]

I game using Windows 7, I said my PC gaming experience started with Windows 98. This was in response to swaaye's post that editing config files ended with DOS. RollerCoaster Tycoon 3, which I bought through Steam, needs manually editing of config files to use custom resolutions. The Steam distribution of Fallout 3 has a common crash on Windows 7 that to fix, yes you guessed it, needs to you edit the config file. Want Skyrim to make the best use of your hardware? Edit the config files. The setting menus in most games give you the basic settings at best.

Maybe you've been lucky in the games you've bought, or the support those games had from their developers for your particular hardware, but this isn't the case for everybody

I've played all those games and again, outside of Fallout 3 which I guess crashes on some people (never had that problem across multiple PCs and OSes), you don't have to edit the config files. I understand that you may want to and there's nothing wrong with that, but to pretend that it's something you must do in order to game on PC is disingenuous. My brother plays more PC games that I do and he is only vaguely aware that config files exist.

The bottom line is, at least PC gives you the choice of changing settings to balance IQ and FPS. One of the main reasons I stopped playing games on consoles is because framerates are generally terrible (~30fps) in many (most?) graphically intense titles and there's nothing you can do about it.

P.S. another thing that bugs me about consoles is that when a new one comes out you can go ahead and trash all your old games because they won't even work any more. Fallout 3 for example, even if I had to edit the config file to play it that's better than not having the option to play it at all! Unless you wanna keep all your old consoles hooked up but I don't think that's what usually happens.

 

[pjbliverpool]

I think it's 50/50 that the PC gaming market would be bigger but you said "far bigger". Why is it obvious it would be far bigger? I think you're assuming that the PC gaming market would be some approximation of what it is now, I'm not so sure.

I must clarify that in this context I'm talking about the PC market for the AAA cross platform games that we see today rather than the PC market in general. I'd argue that the PC gaming market is already larger than consoles based on the Steam stats, but the market for AAA big budget games is clearly much smaller. So let's say the PC market today for those types of games constitutes 20% of the total market (it's probably not even that). That means if only 1 in 4 of those console gamers would have been PC gamers if consoles didn't exist then the PC market for AAA games would be twice as large as it is today (or 40% of the modern games market). That certainly qualifies as "far bigger".

 

[Arwin]

Yep, to be sure if PC was the only venue, there would be more PC gamers. However, would their average PC performance be higher than the average as defined by consoles, is the real question. My answer would be, maybe, maybe not. It would require users to spend more money on hardware than they'd do with consoles, and even if they did, the question is if they'd then resort to piracy more as a result - there was a time when piracy on PC was killing. I don't know how bad things are today, but consoles, while also suffering piracy here and there, certainly haven't nearly suffered from it to the point of near death that in my experience PC has suffered.

 

[AlNom]

There's a reason I stay away from that god forsaken place.

You gotta let go of that flag capture.

 

[willardjuice]

I think discussing editing .ini files/market size/etc. largely misses the point (and is more of a generic pc vs console discussion). But of course consoles hold us back. Just look at the last couple of years in pc gaming. You'll find the vast majority of these games are built with a "D3D 9 philosophy" (aka 360/ps3 philosophy) in mind with various D3D 10/11 effects added as an afterthought (and a lot of them are just brute force techniques). You cannot build an engine (easily at least) that makes the most of D3D 11 while still having to support fixed platforms like 360/ps3. Only now has there been a sudden interest in "D3D 11 philosophy" of rendering (I'm aware this is an oversimplification).

The same thing will happen for feature levels 12+. Those features will be added as an afterthought because they don't apply for consoles. Once Xbox Two and PlayStation 5 come out I suspect those features will no longer be considered an afterthought! This is not to put consoles in a negative light (everything in life has trade offs), but I think we can all agree regardless of what "team" you're on it's silly to suggest a fixed platform doesn't hold back an ever-changing one.