Support NeoGAF

[RespectThySole]

I just don't get it. There was no reason to add a double buffer and mess with the XB1 framerate when it performed completely fine before. Did CDPR just decide to go for parity here?

 

[SultanAdam]

Are you the first person begging for a PS5 remaster?

It was supposed to be a joke.

 

[CHC]

He's saying that Rocksteady is a far more competent developer than CDPR. And he's right.

Batman didn't require MONTHS of constant patching to finish the game. The fact that they just released a patch that makes performance WORSE, even after commenting about how it was supposed to address it, is just laughably incompetent.

Disregarding the other ridiculousness of saying that CDPR is the "biggest joke" this gen, it's still wrong to say that Rocksteady is clearly the more competent dev. When 1 of the 3 versions of your game is such a travesty it has to be pulled from sale, that right there pretty much disqualifies you from any comparisons imvolving "competence". And yes I know they themselves did not really handle that version in house, but their name is on it and at the end of the day it's their game, for better or worse.

Everybody seems to be drunk off the free DLC and constant patches without realizing that we should be getting a complete fucking game at release.

Not going to get into one of these semantics arguments about what constitutes a "complete" game but I think anyone who actually played through Witcher 3 rather than fretted over its textures and frame timing would consider it a pretty damn complete experience.

 

[DustyVonEric]

Dag gone, man... I've been waiting for fixes to issues or a good sale before purchase. I mean, I'm not super desperate to play it, because I have other games to play. But jeez, I do want to play it sometime soon. I'll keep waiting to buy.

 

[Seanspeed]

I never said this should always happen. Where did I say that? You're getting defensive for no reason. But the common misconception that the PS4 version is only higher res but worse frame rate than the XB1 version is the norm is bullshit. I've pointed this out countless times, but people seem to ignore this.

Alright, my bad. I just hear that quite a bit.

 

[OrbitalBeard]

If they release another patch to increase performance...fine. I can wait.

I haven't played my copy yet and was waiting on this patch before starting. It's crazy to think that a game's performance can actually decrease over time with updates. Really sad.

Historically, does CD Projekt Red take feedback like this to heart? Is there a pretty good chance these issues will be fixed?

 

[Summer Haze]

Like Nib said earlier, surely the X1 version having a worse framerate due to the newly-implemented double buffering means that the PS4 version's framerate issues could also be greatly improved simply by removing it and using whatever the X1 version was using before this patch? All this time that is what I thought they were working on...but instead they implemented it in a version that didn't need touching, and hardly improved anything in the version that did. So strange.

 

[SmokedMeat]

I haven't played Witcher 3 on my Bone in a little while, but it seems the game went from mostly above 30fps to well under 30fps after these updates.

I get that some things have been improved, but at the expense of frame rate? Maybe they should just leave the game alone at this point, before we're under 20fps.

 

[Cels]

just got home from breakfast, now downloading the update on pc. anyone early impressions on the performance? i'm fine with performance on pc right now, just don't want a downgrade like ps4/xb1

 

[t0rment]

not surprised in pc users defending this incompetency of a dev. never touching this game now, my money will be going next to rocksteady, at least they give a fuck about console users.

 

[Klossen]

Not going to get into one of these semantics arguments about what constitutes a "complete" game but I think anyone who actually played through Witcher 3 rather than fretted over its textures and frame timing would consider it a pretty damn complete experience.

A complete experience without side quest EXP working? I wouldn't say so.

 

[Apoleptica]

They should just relabel patch 1.01 as 1.08 and re-release it for Xbox one as that one seemed to be the best.

 

[funkystudent]

I just don't get it. There was no reason to add a double buffer and mess with the XB1 framerate when it performed completely fine before. Did CDPR just decide to go for parity here?

Could just be a rushed patched that shared a bit too much code between versions.


On the plus side bow CDP have more people yelling at them about it so maybe double buffering will finally be removed on both consoles next patch.

 

[Dex815]

Steam downloading now.

 

[Seanspeed]

not surprised in pc users defending this incompetency of a dev. never touching this game now, my money will be going next to rocksteady, at least they give a fuck about console users.

Not surprised to see console users defending Arkham Knight's incompetency. My money will be going to CDPR, at least they care about PC gamers.

 

[daevv]

I find reloading after a death takes forever now on PS4.

 

[Denton]

These guys at CDPR have become the biggest joke so far this gen, they may be laughing to the bank, but I'm sure quite a few persons will remember the effort they made on consoles for release, which they still can't fix months after.

There was a thread where a poster mentioned that a dev who left the project prior to W3 shipping; mentioned that the consoles versions were in a total mess and that PC would be the right way to go, I meant to question him on that statement but never got to it and lost track of the thread in question. Even now, Damien Monnier, recommends playing witcher 3 on a low end PC over the XB1 version because you will get to play at 1080p. Putting 2 and 2 together, not only will you do that, but you will be able to use ultra textures, better water effects, better shadows etc....

It's just a bad effort all round, what's worse is that this game has a marketing deal with the XB1 brand, not surprisingly however; another marketing deal shows up where the PS4 version has all sorts of problems running things better over the XB1 in similar scenes. The norm is that the PS4 will hold a higher framerate at a higher resolution than the XB1 every time, sometimes with some added effects and detail, but not here. Not with these XB1 marketed games apparently.

These guys were propped up so much by a few posters here, (mostly pc guys) but clearly these guys have to go back to the drawing board on console development. When you watch what Rocksteady have done and what CDPR have done on consoles there's no doubt as to which dev is more competent...

Tracing their tracks for W3 development does not gain them any traction or boosts one's confidence in their ability to deliver a quality product. Their history on this project looks like this;

1.Witcher 3 announced to a great looking trailer.
2. Witcher 3 gameplay shown and shows a massive downgrade
3. Witcher 3 is delayed
4.Witcher 3 launches and gets great scores
5. Witcher 3 is a technical mess on consoles, even lower end pc's have better textures and effects
6. Devs promises patches to solve console issues
7. Patches are released solving all issues except the most glaring and obvious.
8. Devs makes promises on patches they don't deliver.


If anything, the fact that the Witcher 3 has better textures and effects on a 750ti shows that the consoles should have much better performance there already, since many of these effects are dialed back on consoles. The PS4 should have similar or better effects over the 750ti and run any game better too (as has been shown in many comparisons). This port job is no better than RE-R2, Xenoverse, Remake and Alien Isolation. Some of the performance and missing graphical features in some of these ports had me scratching my head, but nothing made me smh more than double buffered vsync for cutscenes and gameplay and all these lower than low effects and ultra textures which were all possible on lower end pc hardware for Witcher 3. Hell, at least RE-R2 had 16xAF........

thanks for the laugh, amazing

 

[tuxfool]

I haven't done any scientific testing, but my impression is that performance is slightly better on PC.

OFC it could be placebo or driver changes since the last time I played.

edit: mostly placebo or driver improvements.

I submitted this over in the Witcher 3 PC Performance Thread, but thought it would help out here too. Here are the numbers I'm getting with 1.07. Here is my exact hardware setup along with drivers / overclocks and such. For the initial benchmarks, I'm not using the new Movement Response. Each area was benchmarked at 7pm game time with clear weather using FRAPS for 120 seconds while running around encircling the area.

Benchmarks
Abandoned Village
Min: 45.0 (1.06) 46.0 (1.07)
Max: 54.0 (1.06) 55.0 (1.07)
Avg: 49.7 (1.06) 50.4 (1.07) +1.4%

Hierarch Square
Min: 48.0 (1.06) 46.0 (1.07)
Max: 60.0 (1.06) 60.0 (1.07)
Avg: 53.0 (1.06) 56.7 (1.07) +6.9%

Byways
Min: 40.0 (1.06) 41.0 (1.07)
Max: 50.0 (1.06) 51.0 (1.07)
Avg: 44.4 (1.06) 45.1 (1.07) +1.5%

Crookback Bog
Min: 37.0 (1.06) 43.0 (1.07)
Max: 52.0 (1.06) 53.0 (1.07)
Avg: 45.9 (1.06) 46.8 (1.07) +1.9%

I would trust the Abandoned Village and Byways numbers the most as there are fewer variables in the area. After messing with the Movement Response, there is a negligible performance difference between the two.

If anything, the fact that the Witcher 3 has better textures and effects on a 750ti shows that the consoles should have much better performance there already

Quite a few games mysteriously perform well (or even better?) on a 750ti. A card that is worse on paper.

 

[BlackRock]

Not surprised to see console users defending Arkham Knight's incompetency. My money will be going to CDPR, at least they care about PC gamers.

Agreed. It's not surprising that PC gamers like CDPR. They've been strong supporters of PC gaming. TW3 also runs very well on PC. I'm sorry to hear that console players are having issues with the game, but I'd hardly call CDPR incompetent. They are trying to make a very demanding game work on constrained hardware. Even on PC you aren't going to be running on Ultra settings unless you have a beast of a machine. It's a demanding game.

 

[bounchfx]

do you guys think that CDP it just going to leave the framerate shit now because this patch shitted it up? I'm a bit confused.. so many are crying doomsday, and all I see is them busting their asses off patching the game a ton since launch. Do you really think they aren't going to patch anymore after this and try to fix the issue? or are you just freaking out because you might have to play with lower framerate or wait until they can get another patch out to correct this?

I just don't see them NOT trying to fix this asap if it's a serious issue. It does suck though that it happened at all. about to finish DLing 1.08 on pc, hopefully it doesn't see the same issue.

also, afaik rocksteady did not make the latest batman for PC.

 

[Vire]

Agreed. It's not surprising that PC gamers like CDPR. They've been strong supporters of PC gaming. TW3 also runs very well on PC. I'm sorry to hear that console players are having issues with the game, but I'd hardly call CDPR incompetent. They are trying to make a very demanding game work on constrained hardware. Even on PC you aren't going to be running on Ultra settings unless you have a beast of a machine. It's a demanding game.

I don't think it's necessarily fair to Rocksteady to say that. They had zero part of the PC port and delivered immaculate console versions to both Xbox One and PS4. It runs at a close to perfect framerate and it looks phenomenal. I think it looks significantly better than the Witcher 3 on consoles, and runs better too.

Rocksteady did their job, Warner Brothers fucked it up by outsourcing the PC version to Iron Galaxy.

 

[WickedLaharl]

Come on, it was one Dev. Its not like they put out a PR statement claiming to have fixed it. People make mistakes, blaming the whole company for it is dumb.

Nah, it's not dumb at all.

If this patch wasn't going to improve the framerate there was ample time between when those statements were made and this patches release to say something and adjust peoples expectations.

Sorry but as a consumer i do not appreciate being lied to like some folks and refuse to be an apologist.

 

[RK9039]

Agreed. It's not surprising that PC gamers like CDPR. They've been strong supporters of PC gaming. TW3 also runs very well on PC. I'm sorry to hear that console players are having issues with the game, but I'd hardly call CDPR incompetent. They are trying to make a very demanding game work on constrained hardware. Even on PC you aren't going to be running on Ultra settings unless you have a beast of a machine. It's a demanding game.

Definitely, I haven't had any issues with the game since launch so I don't really have anything to complain about.

The state of AK on PC is much worse than Witcher 3 on consoles.

 

[HeeHo]

not surprised in pc users defending this incompetency of a dev. never touching this game now, my money will be going next to rocksteady, at least they give a fuck about console users.

Wow, you're acting like they did this deliberately. Go ahead and give your money to rocksteady because their game is great too but it's also a lot smaller than W3. I mean, CDPR has already given away a ton of free DLC... but yeah, they don't care about you at all....

It's not like I don't want improved performance but I still find the experience to be perfectly playable. As a a person who has played almost exclusively consoles games my whole life, I've definitely dealt with a lot worse FPS than this and still had a lot of fun.

The reason this game gets a pass for it's inconsistent frame rate is because the game is also pretty damn good.

I'm getting the feeling people are reading about slightly lower frame rates (at least on ps4) due to the new patch and are really digging into themselves that it's the worst thing ever without even touching the game themselves.

 

[Kenzodielocke]

Not surprised to see console users defending Arkham Knight's incompetency. My money will be going to CDPR, at least they care about PC gamers.

Difference is, that CDPR handled both, while Rocksteady only did the console version of the game.

But again, PC and console versions of both games should run fine, no excuses.

 

[Vire]

Nah, it's not dumb at all.

If this patch wasn't going to improve the framerate there was ample time between when those statements were made and this patches release to say something and adjust peoples expectations.

Sorry but as a consumer i do not appreciate being lied to like some folks and refuse to be an apologist.

I just don't understand how this doesn't come up in testing. Like wouldn't the first thing you do when testing performance is go to the worst performing area in the game and see if the changes have improved the framerate?

Do they need to send out their preview build to Digital Foundry ahead of time to make sure it isn't fucked up?

Just bewildering.

 

[roytheone]

not surprised in pc users defending this incompetency of a dev. never touching this game now, my money will be going next to rocksteady, at least they give a fuck about console users.

Ehm, aren't you doing the EXACT same thing with this post? Defending an incompetent Dev because the version that is broken is not the one you play?

 

[Maxximo]

Yes, I'm sure despite this game being likely to be a strong contender for GOTY for consumers and media alike, this studio is the biggest joke of this gen. lol

They should learn from Rockstedy on how to launch a game without issues...yeah...

 

[tuxfool]

Nah, it's not dumb at all.

If this patch wasn't going to improve the framerate there was ample time between when those statements were made and this patches release to say something and adjust peoples expectations.

Sorry but as a consumer i do not appreciate being lied to like some folks and refuse to be an apologist.

I'm surprised PR hasn't been fired. They have been all over the place with PR on this game. However, they did say that this 1.07 or 1.08 would be fixing performance issues previously (a while ago).

 

[Insane Metal]

A GB for every fps it removes?

 

[Overside]

Guys, they didnt put all the work they did on this patch to pull the carpet out from under you and laugh at how they tricked you.

Im not saying to be an apologist, I am actually staunchly against such enabling practices.

But perhaps we could bring the shortcoming to their attention without being screeching dick headed banshees?

Just straight shooting constructive criticism?

 

[hesido]

It's probably an honest mistake, someone turned on the wrong switch, compiled the wrong shader etc.

 

[Vire]

Guys, they didnt put all the work they did on this patch to pull the carpet out from under you and laugh at how they tricked you.

Im not saying to be an apologist, I am actually staunchly against such enabling practices.

But perhaps we could bring the shortcoming to their attention without being screeching dick headed banshees?

Just straight shooting constructive criticism?

I don't think you have to be polite when you pay someone sixty dollars for them to fuck up your game and make it worse in the middle of the night.

I understand the outrage, especially for Xbox One owners.

 

[GeNoMe]

The Witcher forum community must be going crazy right now. I'm not one to complain about frame rates. The XP bug for example really bothered me tough.
But to apply parity in the way CDPR did is just nasty, i'd like to think that it was an honest mistake. I wonder if/how they will respond.

 

[dark10x]

It is a guaranteed PR shitstorm. According to my personal observations many people believe that these $399 boxes are magic and that a game's poor performance is always due to "lack of optimization" by "lazy devs".

I can agree but, in this case, it seems like they should be able to do better. Game isn't especially CPU heavy and a 750ti runs much faster. It shouldn't really be the case, I feel.

 

[ThreePiMatt]

The Witcher forum community must be going crazy right now. I'm not one to complain about frame rates. The XP bug for example really bothered me tough.
But to apply parity in the way CDPR did is just nasty, i'd like to think that it was an honest mistake. I wonder if/how they will respond.

I would venture a guess that most of The Witcher forum community is PC players so they're probably taking it all in stride.

 

[Vire]

:lol

 

[thelastword]

Yes, I'm sure despite this game being likely to be a strong contender for GOTY for consumers and media alike, this studio is the biggest joke of this gen. lol


Which is why you are so desperately eager to put them down as much as possible, no doubt. Your intentions see-through as ever.

Last I checked, we were in a tech thread. I mentioned that they got good reviews, but watch the point after, the console versions are a technical mess. Good reviews, technical mess, stuttering janky framerate and camera on release. Even now, the pop-in and load times are a mess. There's just so much wrong with Witcher 3 on a technical level, but people make more noise on the most glaring, which is framerate. The last I checked, a developer not only had to deliver a good game in content and design, but one that plays well too, but what do I know.

That's not the norm. You'd expect the 900p Xbox version to run a little better than the 1080p PS4 version, because of the different CPU clocks and GPU difference being consumed by the resolution increase.

There are some exceptions, like MGS:GZ.

Where have you been? That would not be the norm if the PS4 GPU was only slightly better than the XB1 GPU, maybe a 7780.....but you only need to read a couple of faceoffs to know the truth. If you're going to make such a statement, I'll just have to conclude that you are unaware.

You're starting to lose me.....



.... yeah, you lost me.

Clarification? Rocksteady is a much better developer than CD PROJECT RED. The proof is in the pudding. High quality assets (textures, effects MB, DOF, Pom), minimal to no pop-in issues. A much more solid framerate with much more going on.

Nah, that title is for Wanner Bros/rocksteady/iron Galaxy for the arkham knight PC port. That shit is 10 times worse than witcher 3 on consoles.

He is only right if you talk solely about technical competence on consoles. On PC CDPR is MUCH more competent than rocksteady.

I bet you that will be fixed before W3 on consoles is fixed. In any case, Rocksteady did not develop Arkham Knight on PC, if they did then you would be singing their praises too. Maybe then, I'd beg to wager that you 'd see a "750ti/i3 runs AK at comparable or better than a PS4" thread or more PC guys shouting out how it looks so much better on their rigs over consoles........In the meantime, wait till it gets patched, but Rocksteady does not deserve to be lumped up in this fiasco. It's only fair to blame those responsible only.....

 

[Mr Moose]

Uhh, I won't be installing this patch. What a waste, 7.5GB?

:lol

They fixed it by making the Xbox One version the same lol.

 

[Facundo_Lopez]

After Batman Arkham Knight, there's no excuse for these guys to release such a mess of a game.

CLEARLY, both consoles are able to maintain much better IQ and framerate than what is being offered to us.

Sorry CDPR, but you don't deserve the technical praise that this game had.

 

[Seanspeed]

any case, Rocksteady did not develop Arkham Knight on PC, if they did then you would be singing their praises too.

Tales from your ass.

If they had to do the PC version as well and actually do a great job with it, it would pulled resources from the console versions. The fact that Rock steady didn't even have to worry about the PC makes the situations incomparable.

 

[Quazar]

So do they force you download patch on Xbox one?

 

[Broank]

I was going to say after playing with the new patch last night I really miss the original smooth 30-35 fps on Xbone (yea yea frame pacing whatever at least it always stayed above 30). Voices sometimes don't play in cut scenes now too... ugh.

The Novigrad pop in seems just slightly improved at least (no whole buildings loading in in front of me), still not as good as before all the patches. And the controls let you whip around to your hearts content like a mad man now. lol

 

[Zemm]

Didn't Rocksteady develop the PC version of Arkham City? That game is still broke in dx11.

 

[tuxfool]

Didn't Rocksteady develop the PC version of Arkham City? That game is still broke in dx11.

Yup. I also don't think that they should get a free pass because they get to put the PC version of the game out of sight out of mind.

 

[funkystudent]

I wouldnt really compare the situations.

Rocksteady launched a shitshow and are making it better.

CD Project launched a ok game and have been in a loop of introducing game ruining bugs in patches and patching them which introduces new bugs for 2 months.


But at this point I would have more faith in Rocksteady fixing Batman on PC then I do have with CD Projeckt fixing Witcher 3 on consoles. Who knows what they will break the next patch.

 

[geordiemp]

Still not bought this game yet....

Am happy to wait until its a fixed and more steady 30 FPS.

Dont care how good the game is, I am not playing a stuttering mess, it hurts my head.

 

[Maintenance]

Besides the XP bug in the beginning I had no huge problems that I can recall right now with Witcher 3 on my PC, so yeah, to me they are better than Rocksteady by default, since the latter didin't even bother to port their game.

 

[alexandros]

I can agree but, in this case, it seems like they should be able to do better. Game isn't especially CPU heavy and a 750ti runs much faster. It shouldn't really be the case, I feel.

Much faster than the PS4? I don't remember that being the case when DF tested the game, do you have a link? In any case the 750Ti shouldn't be beating the PS4 unless a game is cpu-bound.

 

[Inuhanyou]

Ugh, its been a decent amount of time since the game launched, i wish there was as much outrage about these types of garbage results from fans as the Batman kerfuffle.

All SKU's should be getting good respect.