Support NeoGAF

[JonathanPower]

So it will require a computer far more powerful than consoles, even though consoles are now 99% identical to PC architectures now? lol.

Well, it does not matter if you have a more powerful hardware, if the PC devs are lazy and don't use its full potential. How many games on PC are using more than 2 cores? Although we know an i5 is more powerful than the PS4 CPU, it's pretty much a given that a PC build running on just two i5 cores will perform worse than an optimized version of the same game running on all 8 cores on the PS4. Planetside 2, according to the devs, will be heavily optimized for multithreading on PS4, while the current PC build is not, which is why the game has frame rate problems even on very powerful PCs.

 

[Thrakier]

No visual cutbacks (@720p / 22 to 28 FPS).

 

[Tacitus_]

Oh, right. The PhysX fur stuff.

I'm feeling an emotional connection with this game right now. Dat PhysX

 

[cobragt4001]

I hear you guys, I have a SLI 670 as well and I run The Witcher 2 comfortably. I do hope they optimize their next game but I doubt a single GTX 670 will run it at a locked 60fps with all the bells and whistles (and with physx on top of that)... Would be extra happy to be wrong

And see that's another thing, physx really isn't needed when devs could do the same graphical effects on the cpu. I doubt the consoles will have physx to the extent of the PC version so if TW3 on the PC has various physx level settings like Borderlands, people that run low physx should be fine but that's only if CDPR implement a setting like that.

 

[Vidpixel]

Can't wait for this game. I just started playing The Witcher 2 after the Xbox Live sales, and I'm absolutely loving it so far. An open-world version of it sounds amazing to say the least.

 

[Dictator93]

Well, it does not matter if you have a more powerful hardware, if the PC devs are lazy and don't use its full potential. How many games on PC are using more than 2 cores? Although we know an i5 is more powerful than the PS4 CPU, it's pretty much a given that a PC build running on just two i5 cores will perform worse than an optimized version of the same game running on all 8 cores on the PS4. Planetside 2, according to the devs, will be heavily optimized for multithreading on PS4, while the current PC build is not, which is why the game has frame rate problems even on very powerful PCs.

No offense, but that argumentation is lazy. Tons of games use more than 2 cores. That argument held water in like 2007 at the latest..since then tons of game have gone for a multi-core approach.

Seriously... Just because planetside 2 is not that optimized for multicore.. .does not mean other games are not.

A small list off the top of my head:
Battlefield 3, a ton of RTS games (supreme commander, civ games, total war games, COH), Crysis 2, Crysis 3, Metro games, Max Payne...

Some of those games scale up to 8 or 16 threads... showing great performance through more cores (battlefield, crysis 3, metro, max payne). Heck even notoriously single threaded games have become more multithreaded over time: For example Natural Selection 2 sees usage in 4 cores even.

 

[1st Course]

Well, it does not matter if you have a more powerful hardware, if the PC devs are lazy and don't use its full potential. How many games on PC are using more than 2 cores? Although we know an i5 is more powerful than the PS4 CPU, it's pretty much a given that a PC build running on just two i5 cores will perform worse than an optimized version of the same game running on all 8 cores on the PS4. Planetside 2, according to the devs, will be heavily optimized for multithreading on PS4, while the current PC build is not, which is why the game has frame rate problems even on very powerful PCs.

Another thing is that sometimes we have some cases of devs just filling the PC version of multiplats with useless shit just so they can cripple the performance as much as possible. Remember that shit about Crysis 2 having extreme tessellation in areas that you can't even see (like underwater, underground, etc)?

 

[Sentenza]

Anyway, I'm calling it now: The Witcher 3 will be for CD Projekt Red their "Grand Theft Auto 3", or their "Warcraft 2".

For the better or the worse (well, on our side) it will probably be the game that will turn the "small talented studio with a decent following" in a giant in this industry.

 

[Dictator93]

Another thing is that sometimes we have some cases of devs just filling the PC version of multiplats with useless shit just so they can cripple the performance as much as possible. Remember that shit about Crysis 2 having extreme tessellation in areas that you can't even see (like underwater, underground, etc)?

Just so you know... that is not actually how the tesselation in C2 works. I could post tons of links proving that viewpoint incorrect... but it is almost not worth the time anymore. Tesselation in the game was actually quite optimized.

EDIT: Me playing Natural Selection 2: an INDIE GAME that scales to 6 threads apparently.

THOSE LAZY PC DEVS.

 

[KKRT00]

Another thing is that sometimes we have some cases of devs just filling the PC version of multiplats with useless shit just so they can cripple the performance as much as possible. Remember that shit about Crysis 2 having extreme tessellation in areas that you can't even see (like underwater, underground, etc)?

Thats not true and was debunked tons of times.

--

Anyway, I'm calling it now: The Witcher 3 will be for CD Projekt Red their "Grand Theft Auto 3", or their "Warcraft 2".

For the better or the worse (well, on our side) it will probably be the game that will turn the "small talented studio with a decent following" in a giant in this industry.

Yep, CD Projekt stocks will boom after Witcher 3 launch and later Cyberpunk.

 

[Clockwork5]

Didn't they say the PC version would be the best?

Pretty sure they JUST said that wasnt the case.

 

[Exuro]

Pretty sure they JUST said that wasnt the case.

I would consider higher resolution and framerate to be better, not to mention mods. Hopefully their modtools will come out much quicker than 2's did.

 

[1st Course]

Thats not true and was debunked tons of times.

By who? Crytek fanboys? thx but no I rather listen to trusted sites like Techreport instead. You don't even have to listen to me man, just look at the difference between the graphic settings in Crysis 3. Very big performance cost for very little improvements in graphics.

 

[Dictator93]

By who? Crytek fanboys? thx but no I rather listen to trusted sites like Techreport instead. You don't even have to listen to me man, just look at the difference between the graphic settings in Crysis 3. Very big performance cost for very little improvements in graphics.

Except the Techreport "report" on the tesselation is factually incorrect.

No fanboyism there brother.

 

[Kinyou]

btw, CDR also said in an interview that they're talking with Microsoft about carrying over your Witcher 2 save to the Xbox One. For the PS4 version they are thinking about a Mass Effect 2 like opening that lets you make the most important decisions.

http://www.godisageek.com/2013/07/interview-cd-projekt-red-witcher-3-wild-hunt/

 

[Alebrije]

It was confirmed on PS4 months before being announced on XB1, actually.
The day they revealed the console for the very first time, in fact.

Wow...I do not follow the news all time but extrange did not noticed something like that ....its great anayway.

 

[KKRT00]

By who? Crytek fanboys? thx but no I rather listen to trusted sites like Techreport instead. You don't even have to listen to me man, just look at the difference between the graphic settings in Crysis 3. Very big performance cost for very little improvements in graphics.

What about Crytek?

This is performance comparison by MaLDo
http://maldotex.blogspot.com/2011/09/tesselation-myth-in-crysis-2-el-mito-de.html

This are Crytek statements
http://www.crydev.net/viewtopic.php?p=888419#p888419
http://www.crydev.net/viewtopic.php?p=888963#p888963
http://www.crydev.net/viewtopic.php?p=889047&sid=d89c52814343056a017d5978b8497068#p889047

But yeah fanboys...

 

[Ushae]

Is CDP self publishing?

 

[Nirolak]

Is CDP self publishing?

Not entirely. They will have partner announcements near the end of Summer (GamesCom?)

 

[Perkel]

Is CDP self publishing?

Yes, distribution will be handled by partners outside of EU

 

[Can Crusher]

I will eat a hat if that wolf fur isn't PC exclusive.

 

[KKRT00]

I will eat a hat if that wolf fur isn't PC exclusive.

I'm with You on this, some features will be PC exclusive, no doubt about that.

 

[Foxyone]

I will eat a hat if that wolf fur isn't PC exclusive.

I have a feeling that something around the level of a 660 would be able to run the game at 30+ FPS without too much trouble, so you may have some hat to eat. I'd kinda laugh though if next-gen consoles didn't get next-gen wolves.

 

[Dragon1893]

Anyway, I'm calling it now: The Witcher 3 will be for CD Projekt Red their "Grand Theft Auto 3", or their "Warcraft 2".

For the better or the worse (well, on our side) it will probably be the game that will turn the "small talented studio with a decent following" in a giant in this industry.

They deserve it and hopefully it wont affect their design philosophy.

 

[BRUTALBOWN]

They say eye candy but that doesn't include frame rate, PC will be the only platform of 60 fps and beyond, consoles 30 and under.

 

[EternalTruth]

False:
- No high-end Physx stuff for fur and hair on console versions!
- No TXAA which basically means no jaggies...
- Much lower framerate (30 vs 60fps)

 

[Foxyone]

Wrong. No high-end Physx stuff for fur and hair on console versions!

Perhaps they could find a way to fake it? So soon into the console's lifespan and already making sacrifices though?

 

[Sentenza]

They deserve it and hopefully it wont affect their design philosophy.

Oh, yeah, I hope that as well, of course.
But just to stress my point: I wasn't really expressing some wishful thinking about how much I hope they will be successful, I was making a genuine prediction.

I really think this could be the game capable of turning them from "mildly successful" into a giant in the gaming industry, like GTA III did with DMA/Rockstar.
And I'm not saying this just because I'm anticipating this game a lot (A LOT); the way it was received at this E3 is playing a big part in my speculation.

 

[Jay Shadow]

Anyway, I'm calling it now: The Witcher 3 will be for CD Projekt Red their "Grand Theft Auto 3", or their "Warcraft 2".

For the better or the worse (well, on our side) it will probably be the game that will turn the "small talented studio with a decent following" in a giant in this industry.

I think Cyberpunk will be the one that puts them over the top.

Witcher 3 will definitely do better than Witcher 2, but that "last of the trilogy" baggage they've been tacking onto their promotion is gonna keep a lot of people away. Stuff like GTA and Elder Scrolls didn't have that perceived entry barrier.

I could be wrong once the marketing machine kicks into full gear next year, but so far I've seen the CGI Cyberpunk trailer generate far more interest among mainstream gamers than Witcher 3 has even with all the E3 awards. Maybe the CGI "Killing Monsters" trailer will help kick up interest a notch when it's released to the public.

 

[Vulcano's assistant]

Best collector edition item possible? Do it, CDP!

Spoiler

no furry

 

[michaelius]

Oh, right. The PhysX fur stuff.

That picture makes me really happy GTX 770 owner

 

[shinobi602]

No visual cutbacks (@720p / 22 to 28 FPS).

This isn't PC vs PS3/360 here.

 

[teh_pwn]

Didn't they say the PC version would be the best?

Unless the assets are nerfed, PC is best by default. You can put a faster GPU/CPU in a PC and run 120 fps with low frame latency. You can increase AA/AF via driver.

 

[nowai]

Wolf fur is now a next gen term.

 

[Kinyou]

They say eye candy but that doesn't include frame rate, PC will be the only platform of 60 fps and beyond, consoles 30 and under.

Well comparing framerates is kind of pointless anyway due to the PCs open ended nature.

 

[I NEED SCISSORS]

Witcher 3 PhysX dog > COD: Ghosts dog.

 

[FACE]

I read it more like "We are going to make a neutral statement in the (failed) attempt to make everyone feel happy and validated with his console of choice".

These sorts of statements and multiplatform development usually means PC gamers are getting the shaft, but we'll see. I hope you are right.

 

[Momentary]

The console versions will probably run at a solid 30fps and have brilliant graphics, to get the same level on PC will take a monster PC i'd bet so no, PC versions are not always the best, not unless you have a monster PC in the first place and not everyone does.
God PC guys are annoying.

How is that going to be when they share the same architecture and practically the same hardware? A PC running a similar GPU and CPU will give you similar performance.

Do you still believe in faerie dust? GPUs from 2006 still outperform multiplats from current gen consoles.

I will eat a hat if that wolf fur isn't PC exclusive.

And even if consoles have that fur it has to move like the PC version too. Rigor mortis fur doesn't count.

 

[teh_pwn]

How is that going to be when they share the same architecture and practically the same hardware? A PC running a similar GPU and CPU will give you similar performance.

Do you still believe in faerie dust? GPUs from 2006 still outperform multiplats from current gen consoles.

And you don't need a monster PC. A high end PC from 2011 or a mid range PC from 2012 beats PS4's performance. Exception is VRAM.

 

[Eusis]

People who think it takes monster PCs to run at console settings are also annoying

Advent of a new generation and sequel to one of the most brutal, "update your damn video card" games in a long while. Even if the concern for upgrading's exaggerated it will probably be less so here.

EDIT: Not that the assumption on a whole isn't obnoxious, ESPECIALLY for this gen at this point in time, and even next gen it probably means "get a solid $800 PC to match consoles" at worst, but for me it's just ENOUGH to make me lean PS4. Especially without details on system requirements as I recall, and definitely no word yet on LEs or save data transfer.

EDIT 2:

And you don't need a monster PC. A high end PC from 2011 or a mid range PC from 2012 beats PS4's performance. Exception is VRAM.

This admittedly IS kind of a problem for anyone who upgraded their computers in 2011, though I'm assuming the 560ti's more mid range. Still, while it beats out XB1 it doesn't beat out PS4, so even if console optimization's exaggerated it does appear in brute force my video card's going to lose even if the CPU... with the way things are going it's probably not going to be seriously topped even in 10 damn years.

 

[cripterion]

Unless the assets are nerfed, PC is best by default. You can put a faster GPU/CPU in a PC and run 120 fps with low frame latency. You can increase AA/AF via driver.

lol sure, the sky is the ceiling for pc but at what cost?

 

[Lingitiz]

Advent of a new generation and sequel to one of the most brutal, "update your damn video card" games in a long while. Even if the concern for upgrading's exaggerated it will probably be less so here.

EDIT: Not that the assumption on a whole isn't obnoxious, ESPECIALLY for this gen at this point in time, and even next gen it probably means "get a solid $800 PC to match consoles" at worst, but for me it's just ENOUGH to make me lean PS4. Especially without details on system requirements as I recall, and definitely no word yet on LEs or save data transfer.

EDIT 2:

This admittedly IS kind of a problem for anyone who upgraded their computers in 2011, though I'm assuming the 560ti's more mid range. Still, while it beats out XB1 it doesn't beat out PS4, so even if console optimization's exaggerated it does appear in brute force my video card's going to lose even if the CPU... with the way things are going it's probably not going to be seriously topped even in 10 damn years.

By the time the game releases, the 800 series will probably be released. A 2 year life span really is not bad. Even if you decided not to upgrade, you'd still be able to get around console settings.

 

[Sentenza]

lol sure, the sky is the ceiling for pc but at what cost?

You know, the cost ceiling is almost irrelevant in the long run.
Even if today you can barely afford to play a game with the same settings of its console version or even less, there's this cool thing with PC games. their lifespawn extent beyond the one of the hardware you are running them now.
Few years down the road, you will have the option to play The Witcher 3 on PS4/XB1 and it will look identical to how it looks now. OR you will play it on a new PC, and it will look more gorgeous than ever even on a mid range system.

 

[Chamber]

I will eat a hat if that wolf fur isn't PC exclusive.

It will if they know what's good for them. This game will not sell to console users without wolf fur, playboy.

 

[Sentenza]

It will if they know what's good for them. This game will not sell to console users without wolf fur, playboy.

You can't be serious... Can you?

 

[Kurdel]

You can't be serious... Can you?

PS4 and Xbox One PhysX support on AMD believe.

 

[teh_pwn]

lol sure, the sky is the ceiling for pc but at what cost?

Desktop CPUs are leagues faster IPC than these consoles. So when PS4 comes out replace the GPU with an AMD HD 9000 20nm. Should get greater than Geforce Titan at $400 if Moore's law is any indication. AMD 6000->7000 was nearly 2x, and 7970 GHz edition is nearly 2x PS4.

PS4 games will look great. If Naughty Dog can get something out fast, that game arguably would look better than PC games for a couple of years. But my point is that these consoles are using such pragmatic silicon for the COGS this time around that a mid-range cheap PC will match it...now.

 

[Sentenza]

PS4 and Xbox One PhysX support on AMD believe.

That's just partially accurate; beside, not really what I was talking about.
It's the assumption that "without next gen fur the console versions would flop hard" that strikes me as beyond ridiculous.

 

[Eusis]

By the time the game releases, the 800 series will probably be released. A 2 year life span really is not bad. Even if you decided not to upgrade, you'd still be able to get around console settings.

Well, I would prefer a video card over $200 to at least be ACCEPTABLE for longer, though admittedly I have my doubts the Witcher 3 will be that same huge leap Witcher 2 was. Still, it IS open world this time around, so we can only wait and see what they announce is required and perhaps when benchmarks are out, I do feel that choosing between a PC upgrade or a new console RIGHT at the start of a console generation generally favors console, though it helps this time new CPUs/mobos probably are going to take awhile longer to be necessary so it'd probably just be a video card and maybe RAM.

 

[Kurdel]

That's just partially accurate; beside, not really what I was talking about.
It's the assumption that "without next gen fur the console versions would flop hard" that strikes me as beyond ridiculous.

Some people live for the bells and whistles. As a person that will play this on Pc, I count myself as a part of those people.

But then again, most people aren't crazy.