Support NeoGAF

[roytheone]

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.....

Well, first of all, Arkham knight on PC is much more broken than the console versions of Witcher 3. Those drop to 20 fps on certain places in the map, Bad, but not completely unplayable. Arkham knight PC becomes unplayable because of ridiculous stuttering after playing for 20 minutes thanks to memory leaks. Also, Warner Bros just released a statement that an intermediary patch is planned to be released in August, so that will still take quite a while.

Secondly, the PC ports of arkham asylum and city by rocksteady themselves were mediocre at best, selecting the directx 11 options would destroy the framerate.

Finally, the reason why Rocksteady didn't do the port themselves was because they weren't capable enough. If they were very good at making PC versions, don't you think they would have kept the PC port inhouse? Instead, they realized they were mediocre at PC ports and decided to outsource it. Of course, Warner bros is probably to blame for picking the lowest cost option, in this case the even more incapable Iron galaxy, so they certainly share the most of the blame, but Rocksteady isn't completely blameless here. If they were better at PC ports and kept it in house, this mess wouldn't have happened.

 

[Jessie.Bristol]

I guess it's a good thing a finished the game a while ago then. Damn, that does not make any sense how they could reduce performance.

 

[thelastword]

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

That has been discussed before, the games which run worse were bad ports. Yeah, bad ports do exist, currently PC guys got a bad port of AK, if we looked at these bad ports and used it to paint a picture of the hardware we would be wrong. In essence, the bad port does not mean that the PS4 version of AK will look and perform better over the 980GTx version when it's properly patched there.

Look at any of the recent releases to get some idea as to how far ahead the PS4 is over the i3/750ti setup in general framerate, we're looking at double digits in the last few instances. It's no conspiracy theory, I'm sure a lot of the PC guys are furious that they received such a port for the class of hardware they have for AK, the point is, they want to get performance commensurate with their specs, can you blame them? It's just a bit disingenuous that some would understand when a bad port comes to the PC, but don't, when it's highlighted on the console side.


Just to get some perspective, Alien Isolation will run 60fps on a i3/750ti, it's locked at 30fps on the PS4 with some effects dialed back, that does not makes sense. The same can be said about Xenoverse. it has worse lighting on the PS4, worse filtering and it's locked at 30fps there, whilst the i3/750ti combo plays it at 60fps without skipping a beat with 16x AF to boot with all those dandy effects. RE-R2 runs better on the XB1 and i3/750ti combo, should we use that to show how comparable or how their performance exceed PS4 hardware? The better hardware should always perform better, if it does not, there's an issue with the porting.

 

[cleveridea]

Seems odd given that the main features of the patch are in the menu screens (or otherwise without visual changes, like the no weight crafting)

Didnt console owners skip a few patches vs PC? Perhaps one of the PC patches (eg nicer looking scenery after 1 of them) had accumulated a performance deficit that they hadnt considered. Its hard to imagine the team adding a new fast movement control option if it looks bad due to the substantial frame rate hit.

 

[meanspartan]

I feel sorry for the guy who bought my PS4 copy. This is unacceptable. A major AAA release a month after release still being this broken. I feel bad for the millions who are playing this on console.

What the actual fuck? Is that how easily we are throwing around "broken"? I played the game through the main story a month ago, and it played fine. Maybe this patch hits performance, and that sucks. But the game I played a month ago was in no way broken.

Arkham Knight on PC is "broken". Sometimes dipping below 30fps is not "broken". Especially when it's in such an expansive RPG, maybe the best I've played in years.

 

[cripterion]

Should have believed Obi Wan... only a Sith deals in absolutes....

Lol

 

[Green Yoshi]

I hope the framerate problems are fixed when I will buy a PS4 next February.

 

[Mr. Nice_Guy]

It's times like these that I'm glad I can see these issues, but not let them bother me. A few stutters here and there won't ruin my experience.

That being said I'm surprised it has gotten worse, that's wild. Can't criticize much though since I don't have enough of a grasp on game development, but it is disappointing to hear.

I feel sorry for the guy who bought my PS4 copy. This is unacceptable. A major AAA release a month after release still being this broken. I feel bad for the millions who are playing this on console.

Yeah sorry, this isn't a broken game by any means. Not even remotely close.

 

[benjammin]

I feel sorry for the guy who bought my PS4 copy. This is unacceptable. A major AAA release a month after release still being this broken. I feel bad for the millions who are playing this on console.

Yea, that's not what broken means. This is a GOTY contender despite a couple of frame drops here and there. To call it broken is embarrassing and laughable when games like BF4 released and were completely unplayable even months after launch. Is it disappointing? Absolutely. Is it broken? Not one bit. Don't let the hyperbole get the best of you.

 

[Karl Hawk]

Yea, that's not what broken means. This is a GOTY contender despite a couple of frame drops here and there. To call it broken is embarrassing and laughable when games like BF4 released and were completely unplayable even months after launch. Is it disappointing? Absolutely. Is it broken? Not one bit. Don't let the hyperbole get the best of you.

Most people who hate the game are prone to hyperbole.

 

[thelastword]

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.

Is not so much that it runs better, but it's assets are better, ultra textures, better shaders on water, better filtering, better loadtimes, no below low bullshit......The way I see it, Witcher 3 should be running with all these basic features that the low end PC version runs at around Infamous Second Son's framerate.

Well, first of all, Arkham knight on PC is much more broken than the console versions of Witcher 3. Those drop to 20 fps on certain places in the map, Bad, but not completely unplayable. Arkham knight PC becomes unplayable because of ridiculous stuttering after playing for 20 minutes thanks to memory leaks. Also, Warner Bros just released a statement that an intermediary patch is planned to be released in August, so that will still take quite a while.

Secondly, the PC ports of arkham asylum and city by rocksteady themselves were mediocre at best, selecting the directx 11 options would destroy the framerate.

Finally, the reason why Rocksteady didn't do the port themselves was because they weren't capable enough. If they were very good at making PC versions, don't you think they would have kept the PC port inhouse? Instead, they realized they were mediocre at PC ports and decided to outsource it. Of course, Warner bros is probably to blame for picking the lowest cost option, in this case the even more incapable Iron galaxy, so they certainly share the most of the blame, but Rocksteady isn't completely blameless here. If they were better at PC ports and kept it in house, this mess wouldn't have happened.

The way things are going with W3, it's been two months already, it's getting worse and worse. I also doubt that CDPROJECT RED will fix the bad load times for textures and post deaths, ridiculous pop-in, below low settings on many effects, sub par and inconsistent texture filtering for the ground, cases of low quality AO and shadows, below par and inconsistent textures. Highest quality textures does not even task the lowest end PC, but consoles don't have them.

Of course beyond all these dialed back effects on better hardware (PS4), performance is still a crapshoot, then we have brilliant decisions like double buffered vsync, patches that make framerates worse etc..... So yeah, I'm not seeing how they are a shining beacon against Rocksteady which made the best looking multiplat game so far, which also happens to be open world.

At least you had the option of not selecting DX11 options in asylum and City, what options do console owners of Witcher 3 have of making this game perform better? Yeah, we got to wait for the brilliant guys at CDPR...

 

[Daingurse]

Ouch that sucks, especially since the XB1 version was pretty solid before this. Really dissapointing to see a fantastic game hampered by performance issues on the consoles.

 

[Radec]

"Broken" has lost its meaning on how it is easily being thrown in this thread.

 

[big_z]

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?

Well if those on the cdpr forum are to be believed then the ps4 version has a reduced LOD compared to the Xbox version after this patch. So not quite parity but getting there.

 

[7DollarHagane]

Is the PC version affected? I'm happy with the performance on my 670

 

[InsaneTiger]

The current-gen is showing to be more complicated for third parties than I thought.

One step forward and two steps back.

 

[tuxfool]

Is the PC version affected? I'm happy with the performance on my 670

Nah, PC version seems fine.

 

[Sai]

I don't get it. Things seemed a lil' smoother to me in and around Novigrad.

I'm on PS4, by the way.

 

[Inuhanyou]

Devs have an obligation to make sure their SKU's actually run decently when designing their games, this 'release now patch later' mindset is really fucking over consumers on every platform, and the last thing we need is hypocrites on both sides dismissing the failures because their platform of choice was treated better.

I said it in the Arkham Knight kerfuffle, and i said it in the USF4 backlash and i'll say it here; There's no excuse for this incompetency. Its been more than a month and we still have sub 20fps and sustained 20fps performance issues with no real assurance these issues will ever be fixed to any degree.

 

[wotter]

I don't get it. Things seemed a lil' smoother to me in and around Novigrad.

I'm on PS4, by the way.

Afaik, there is a (small) improvement on PS4, although I still need to see it for myself (patch is not up yet here).

 

[thelastword]

The current-gen is showing to be more complicated for third parties than I thought.

One step forward and two steps back.

And you'd think it should be easier to get competent products out because of the PC-like architecture, but NOOOOOO....

The way I see it, the more things change the more they will stay the same (for some at least). Capcom has been on a downward spiral, their portjobs have been woeful at best with cheap $5 budget projects for their remasters, and then, I'm mostly seeing PC devs struggling with consoles the most. I really thought it would be easier for them.

When TLOU Remastered was running below 30fps just a month or two before it released and it's released to a stable 60fps with several enhancements, it gives me perspective. GOW 3 runs at a stable 60fps also, these games are much more complicated to make run from PS3 code, yet they are the best remasters. Then we see remasters like Payday 2 that falls to 19fps on the PS4 ported from the PC version where the lower end PC hardware, less capable than PS4 runs it at 60fps. Then we have an even blander looking prototype collection that runs at 30fps with dips on consoles, again much easier to make the conversion to these consoles from PC. My goodness, if the PS4 was a Cell 2 with 4 PPE's and 32 SPU's, I really don't want to envision the state of some of these ports then.

Make the console easier to develop for.... says the devs... we still get garbage. The only devs who are not developing garbage are those who have always been stellar on more exotic hardware.

 

[Alej]

And you'd think it should be easier to get competent products out because of the PC-like architecture, but NOOOOOO....

The way I see it, the more things change the more they will stay the same (for some at least). Capcom has been on a downward spiral, their portjobs have been woeful at best with cheap $5 budget projects for their remasters, and then, I'm mostly seeing PC devs struggling with consoles the most. I really thought it would be easier for them.

When TLOU Remastered was running below 30fps just a month or two before it released and it's released to a stable 60fps with several enhancements, it gives me perspective. GOW 3 runs at a stable 60fps also, these games are much more complicated to make run from PS3 code, yet they are the best remasters. Then we see remasters like Payday 2 that falls to 19fps on the PS4 ported from the PC version where the lower end PC hardware, less capable than PS4 runs it at 60fps. Then we have an even blander looking prototype collection that runs at 30fps with dips on consoles, again much easier to make the conversion to these consoles from PC. My goodness, if the PS4 was a Cell 2 with 4 PPE's and 32 SPU's, I really don't want to envision the state of some of these ports then.

Make the console easier to develop for.... says the devs... we still get garbage. The only devs who are not developing garbage are those who have always been stellar on more exotic hardware.

Exactly. I have to say a big thanks for your educated posts. Ignore those guys calling you a fanboy or something, your only agenda here is against those devs and publishers not trying to do a good job and you are so right.

This isn't an hardware problem, at all.

 

[roytheone]

The way things are going with W3, it's been two months already, it's getting worse and worse. I also doubt that CDPROJECT RED will fix the bad load times for textures and post deaths, ridiculous pop-in, below low settings on many effects, sub par and inconsistent texture filtering for the ground, cases of low quality AO and shadows, below par and inconsistent textures. Highest quality does not even task the lowest end PC, but consoles don't have them.

Of course beyond all these dialed back effects on better hardware (PS4), performance is still a crapshoot, then we have brilliant decisions like double buffered vsync, patches that make framerates worse etc..... So yeah, I'm not seeing how they are a shining beacon against Rocksteady which made the best looking multiplat game so far, which also happens to be open world.

At least you had the option of not selecting DX11 options in asylum and City, what options do console owners of Witcher 3 have of making this game perform better? Yeah, we got to wait for the brilliant guys at CDPR...

I never said that CDPR are a shining beacon compared to rocksteady, they definitely fucked up with the console versions, just like rock steady is partially to blame for the arkham knight PC fuck up. And if you were to make the argument that rock steady didn't make the PC version, it would mean you would be comparing development of a ps4/ xbone/ PC game with development of a ps4/ xbone only game, which would be unfair. In the end they both failed to develop good ports for all the versions of their game, and both should be criticized for it.

 

[Nizz]

Damn.... I'm never gonna play this game on PS4, huh? Been holding out on picking this up to see if the framerate gets fixed but it looks like it's just not going to happen. :/

 

[Summer Haze]

Damn.... I'm never gonna play this game on PS4, huh? Been holding out on picking this up to see if the framerate gets fixed but it looks like it's just not going to happen. :/

 

[dan2026]

Was also waiting for the framerate to be fixed on PS4. Hopes shattered.

 

[Sword Of Doom]

I'd say its people like you who doesn't buy a game because it's not perfectly polished on Day 1 that have the most patience. That's not a criticism, but I think many of us are willing to look past some jank if the game offers enough of an upside, which this game clearly does for a lot of people.

In fact, I'd say that a good portion of my favourite games of all-time have some manner of performance issues, bugs, jank, etc.

Not to say that my way is the right way, but I do feel bad for you if your standards are *that* high that you cant enjoy a game unless it's a tightly polished experience. Definitely rules out many of the more ambitious games out there.

It's not about having high standards. It's the constant patching and tinkering that is kind of ridiculous. I haven't bought this game and I won't until it's in a state where they don't need to patch it so often. There are so many games out there I could be playing. Why would I spend $60 on a game that is still being worked on?


Oh and you don't need to "feel bad" for me or anyone else cause We don't play a video game as soon as it's released

 

[SimpleCRIPPLE]

Can't believe they actually dropped the performance on X1. What the hell CDPR. I was all set to FINALLY jump back in this weekend and now i'm 2nd guessing just waiting to see what they do for patch 1.08.

Ugh. I guess its time to clear some backlog until we get a response.

 

[Fbh]

Damn.... I'm never gonna play this game on PS4, huh? Been holding out on picking this up to see if the framerate gets fixed but it looks like it's just not going to happen. :/

The framerate is dissapointing but it's still very playable IMO.
Some people see those 20fps screenshots from the Digital Foundry video and asume the whole game runs like that, it doesn't.

I've played for nearly 90 hours and the only area where the framerate is truly crap is in the swamps. And those are mabye a 10th from one of the several main areas in the game.
That's not to say that the rest of the game performs flawlessly but it's, IMO, fully playable.

So yeah, it's dissapointing that 2 months after release they haven't been able to fix those areas. And it talks poorly about the dev that the new patch ment to fix some of the issues actually made them worse. But a lot of Witcher 3 threads are filled with hyperbole

 

[RoboPlato]

This is really disappointing since I never had issues with the framerate outside of the bog and rain and now it seems to be worse in more common situations.

 

[Sword Of Doom]

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.

Are you guys for real? You realize how childish you sound?

 

[Karl Hawk]

Are you guys for real? You realize how childish you sound?

If t0rment's post history is any indication, he has a hot-temper.

 

[Denton]

Are you guys for real? You realize how childish you sound?

Seanspeed was fairly obviously parodying t0rment's post, highlighting its stupidity.

 

[Wagram]

Honestly, I wish companies would start scaling back even more so that the frame rate is smooth. It doesn't have to be 60, but anything below 30 is unacceptable. The shinnies aren't worth it when the frame rate is slowing down so bad that you can barely do basic actions. At least through all of CDPRs faults TW3 on PC version is really solid, but I don't find these console versions to be acceptable. Unlike Bethesda I think they'll improve with time and create solid experiences. Chew them out.

 

[Aequitas]

Has CDPR made any comment on this??

 

[Surface of Me]

What in the fuck? Not patching, fuck off with this CDPR

 

[Seanspeed]

Exactly. I have to say a big thanks for your educated posts. Ignore those guys calling you a fanboy or something, your only agenda here is against those devs and publishers not trying to do a good job and you are so right.

This isn't an hardware problem, at all.

You are either being entirely naïve or just haven't seen this guy's posts before.

His thing is that CDPR is popular among PC gamers. So he's having a ball of time bashing them(calling them the joke of the generation even...), as he knows if he can knock down what he perceives as an important PC gaming developer, it makes console gaming better looking. He spends a vast amount of his time on this board trying to make PC gaming as a platform look bad in order to big up the PS4 and console gaming.

And here, we can again seeing him do it, using the ridiculous comparison with Rocksteady, even though they did not develop Arkham Knight over both consoles *and* PC like CDPR did their game. He then argues that if Rocksteady did develop Arkham Knight on PC, it would have been great, which is ridiculous for several reasons, like the obvious implication that it would have detracted attention from the console versions and the other obvious note that Rocksteady *have* made PC ports and weren't terribly good at it, either.

He's a completely disingenuous poster with a clear agenda to anyone who has unfortunately followed his posts from countless other threads where he does the same thing relentlessly. It's see through and some of us cant help but call it out when it predictably shows up at a 'prime opportunity' like this.

Now he's not incorrect in some of his points, namely that CDPR are dropping the ball with the console versions here. Nobody is disputing that, though.

Are you guys for real? You realize how childish you sound?

Just pointing out the irony of choosing to support another game that had an even more borked port.

 

[Fbh]

Has CDPR made any comment on this??

I don't think so.

And IF they even comment on this it's probably going to be something like "We are aware of the issue and are aiming to fixing it in the next patch"

 

[Alebrije]

Has CDPR made any comment on this??

Please understand...

 

[alexandros]

Make the console easier to develop for.... says the devs... we still get garbage. The only devs who are not developing garbage are those who have always been stellar on more exotic hardware.

I get why you're upset and I honestly sympathize. I think many of us held out hope that the three platforms' common architecture would lead to smoother porting across all versions and that hasn't been the case so far. In fact it may have gotten worse since consoles have received some shockingly bad ports since the start of the generation.

My only objection is that Witcher 3 doesn't deserve to be considered as one of them. I find the framerate of the console versions completely unacceptable and it absolutely needs to be adressed, but many other people don't have a problem with it and there are a lot of other examples of console games that ran like crap and are still considered classics. The Witcher 3 is a massive, visually impressive game that does indeed run poorly on consoles. I like that you care so much about performance but you probably know you are in the minority among your fellow console gamers.

 

[ghostwritingduck]

How much performance improvement would the PS4 get going down to the XB1 resolution?

 

[Venture]

Honestly, I wish companies would start scaling back even more so that the frame rate is smooth. It doesn't have to be 60, but anything below 30 is unacceptable. The shinnies aren't worth it when the frame rate is slowing down so bad that you can barely do basic actions. At least through all of CDPRs faults TW3 on PC version is really solid, but I don't find these console versions to be acceptable. Unlike Bethesda I think they'll improve with time and create solid experiences. Chew them out.

Please no! Offering graphics settings for those that are hyper frame rate sensitive should be the way to go. I think most people (probably a large majority) are perfectly happy with how Witcher 3 plays.

 

[funkystudent]

How much performance improvement would the PS4 get going down to the XB1 resolution?

Dropping the resolution might smooth out the minor drops but the locked 20fps drops will stay since they are caused by double buffering on PS4 (and now XB1)

 

[Hawk269]

And you'd think it should be easier to get competent products out because of the PC-like architecture, but NOOOOOO....

The way I see it, the more things change the more they will stay the same (for some at least). Capcom has been on a downward spiral, their portjobs have been woeful at best with cheap $5 budget projects for their remasters, and then, I'm mostly seeing PC devs struggling with consoles the most. I really thought it would be easier for them.

When TLOU Remastered was running below 30fps just a month or two before it released and it's released to a stable 60fps with several enhancements, it gives me perspective. GOW 3 runs at a stable 60fps also, these games are much more complicated to make run from PS3 code, yet they are the best remasters. Then we see remasters like Payday 2 that falls to 19fps on the PS4 ported from the PC version where the lower end PC hardware, less capable than PS4 runs it at 60fps. Then we have an even blander looking prototype collection that runs at 30fps with dips on consoles, again much easier to make the conversion to these consoles from PC. My goodness, if the PS4 was a Cell 2 with 4 PPE's and 32 SPU's, I really don't want to envision the state of some of these ports then.

Make the console easier to develop for.... says the devs... we still get garbage. The only devs who are not developing garbage are those who have always been stellar on more exotic hardware.

The CPU on both consoles suck really bad though. You cannot just compare a gpu that is roughly the same power and call it a day. The CPU plays a big part and that is one of the big issues both consoles have.

 

[RPGam3r]

Just lower down some graphics options, for chrisakes!

I saw videos of PS4 version, and it looks too dense and pretty for her poor APU.

No don't do this. Make this optional if you do listen to this CDPR.

 

[geordiemp]

Most people who hate the game are prone to hyperbole.

I dont hate it, just not bought it yet.

There are enough games in my backlog (looks at Batman and Bloodborne) that I can wait until the game is ready for me,

That means a steady 30 FPS. I am patient....it is taking a long time though

 

[geordiemp]

And you'd think it should be easier to get competent products out because of the PC-like architecture, but NOOOOOO....

The way I see it, the more things change the more they will stay the same (for some at least). Capcom has been on a downward spiral, their portjobs have been woeful at best with cheap $5 budget projects for their remasters, and then, I'm mostly seeing PC devs struggling with consoles the most. I really thought it would be easier for them.

When TLOU Remastered was running below 30fps just a month or two before it released and it's released to a stable 60fps with several enhancements, it gives me perspective. GOW 3 runs at a stable 60fps also, these games are much more complicated to make run from PS3 code, yet they are the best remasters. Then we see remasters like Payday 2 that falls to 19fps on the PS4 ported from the PC version where the lower end PC hardware, less capable than PS4 runs it at 60fps. Then we have an even blander looking prototype collection that runs at 30fps with dips on consoles, again much easier to make the conversion to these consoles from PC. My goodness, if the PS4 was a Cell 2 with 4 PPE's and 32 SPU's, I really don't want to envision the state of some of these ports then.

Make the console easier to develop for.... says the devs... we still get garbage. The only devs who are not developing garbage are those who have always been stellar on more exotic hardware.

Its easier to port games to the consoles we are often told.......sometimes I wonder if thats ALL they are doing. Maybe thats unfair but its how I see it sometimes when other devs spit and polish down to how bags of rice deform....

Ps4 optimisation....lol

 

[Ooccoo]

This is the game I'll never finish because each patch is a nightmare

 

[BennyBlanco]

Should have believed Obi Wan... only a Sith deals in absolutes....

Haahahah wow

 

[hesido]

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.

... He then argues that if Rocksteady did develop Arkham Knight on PC, it would have been great, which is ridiculous for several reasons, like the obvious implication that it would have detracted attention from the console versions and the other obvious note that Rocksteady *have* made PC ports and weren't terribly good at it, either.

To be fair, his claims that a Rocksteady developed PC version would surely have been great with no detrimental effect on any version is as valid as your claim that it would pull resources from the console versions and be detrimental, because your claim depends on a fixed development time (maybe they would have released it later) or a fixed quantity of workforce available (they could have made their team bigger.)