Why graphical downgrade on PC exists?
People run hundreds of mods on skyrim that makes it look better than real life and that require a lot of processing power and i know most PC gamers are rich or just don't care about money, so what i'm saying is people have what it needs to run the not downgraded version of TW3, but they downgrade it anyway, why?
Other urls found in this thread:
store.steampowered.com
youtube.com
twitter.com
>i know most PC gamers are rich
heh
Limitations either publishers or console manufacturers force developers into. Or convince them into.
In the case of TW3, since all of the game had improved assets they merely removed for ???? reasons, it could have been as simple as the CEO of CDPR getting a small bribe by Sony to gimp the graphics.
There's no logical other reason for it.
because consoles
>>i know most PC gamers are rich
Look at steam stats, most PC gamers are playing older or less detailed games on toasters.
Because when they showed those gameplay videos the game was not finished. All the assets were still not modeled, textured, animated, etc... the game was not fully optimized and so on. So it's easier, faster and cheaper to just downgrade and work on one version for all platforms then to fork the game and work on two versions, two sets of models and so on.
Because it's not feasible to make a game that only 1 percent of an install base can play. Are there rich people who can afford super graphics? Yes. But does that mean everyone can afford super graphics? No. You have to appeal to the lowest set, because the people who wants the super graphics will find a way.
lol oh man how I remember when witcher threads got shit posted with this meme.
eat shit kiddos. witcher still destroys your anus
>Because when they showed those gameplay videos the game was not finished. All the assets were still not modeled, textured, animated, etc... the game was not fully optimized and so on.
In the case of TW3 this is not true.
And in most cases downgrades involve nothing more than particle or shader effects which they have no reason to remove. In cases like this optimization doesn't even matter.
>I don't understand what a laptop is
>most PC gamers are rich
Oh vey ! If anyone find my money plz tell me, I need it so much
>i3
>Nvidia geforce 750A
>can't run graphical mods for morrowind
It's not a PC only title.
ur a fucking dumb goomba m8. everyone and their dog with a laptop gets steam.
do you like my gpu? i bet it's got a bigger dick than your gpu
>play witcher 3 on ps4 with 30 fps cap
not even once.
How does "muh laptops" refute my point at all?
Go and look at the hardware listing. Most of them aren't mobile chips.
people can barely play the current build at max settings and you wanted it more demanding
>review build
it wasn't that bad and what's your point? I get 70 fps MORE now a year later, with higher settings, now that I upgraded my old GPU. I could have enabled ultra settings but no, the game is destined to look bad for eternity.
>all the texture improvement mods on the nexus for tw3 have bugs
can't someone just fucking release a simple high res texture pack without fucking with everything else?
Yet people threw a tantrum at release for not being able to easily max it out specially with gameworks enable. Most people like to play the games when they buy them not wait a year or more to upgrade their hardware.
People don't generally throw a tantrum if the game looks impressive enough.
I know it's a cliche but look at Crysis, people fully understood why they couldn't max it out.
I'm trying to imagine a scenary where a studio has like 1/3 of the game ready, and once they are done showing it on the media they "optimize" that 1/3 and the other 2/3s are made already "optimized". Like, they make just a fraction of the game, enough to make a gameplay trailer and stuff, then they pick that fraction of work, downgrade, and make the rest the same way, it's not like they make the whole game and then downgrade everything and then it's ready to be shipped. So basically, asking why they don't release a non downgraded version of the game doesn't make sense since they don't even finish the game with the E3 graphics, that one is just part of the game and the full game looking like that never existed and never will. If that's what you're saying then it makes sense for me.
That's weird because I average 80fps in TW3 maxed. The performance was so good that I started playing it in 4k to get the true cinematic experience.
They actually never downgraded The Witcher 3, but I can't expect people that don't know about its development to know this
Source: vidya "journalist"
There's a reason why every game is not crysis. It's sounds very simple. Make a game that looks dope as shit and make it scale-able to low end hardware. But the truth is that doing that it's not simple, people do get upset at not being able to max out games(in the time of crysis people had the highest end hw and still couldn't max it out at release), and the publisher/developers limit the the people who can access the game(in the case of crysis a lot of people didn't buy it because either they couldn't run it or didn't want to play it at lowest settings).
PC games use to be downgraded to work on consoles but they quickly learned it was time-consuming and cost too much money to make a PC game look shit and perform like shit on a console port.
So now they make the console version and port it to PC since all the textures etc are butchered with compression, graphics and effects are toned down to stable levels and just ported over lazily.
Now they have stopped inhouse porting and rely on third party ports by european, chinese, vietnamese developers because they litterally work for $10,000 usd over 6-12 months.
....And? The most popular thread on the forums was the one FILLED with people bitching about the downgrade. You're just a filthy apologist.
>They actually never downgraded The Witcher 3, but I can't expect people that don't know about its development to know this
List of things that were removed/downgraded:
The mod kit
Subsurface scattering
Forward lit soft particles
Semi volumetric clouds
Bokeh depth of field
Seems like a lot of the PBR they bragged about
Combat camera shake
Convincing and gratuitous pools of blood that 'realistically' floated on water
Subtle lens flares
The advanced sign particle effects
Tessellated ground
Anamorphic lens flares
Flexible water simulation
Geralt's face was severely downgraded
In-game scenes like the Wild Hunt attacking the town and the introduction to the emperor of Niilfgard were changed to worse effect
Aerial perspective fog
Sign particle intensity was lowered
Many textures in Novigrad were downgraded
Volume based translucency
Many environment models in Novigrad
Interior lighting looks horrendous now
The bloom shader sucks, you can see how it was before in the wild hunt segment
Screen space reflections
The way drowners look was good and is really bad now
And more. A lot of these terms were taken from CDPR themselves.
>never downgraded Witcher 3
Are you taking the Devs on their technicality that it was "never downgraded" because they completely scrapped the demo version for a new build?
...
He's probably talking about the eurogamer damage control article which talked STRICTLY about the earliest CG trailers they made, and not the completely playable real-time E3 demo/trailer of 2014 that showed most of the world without downgraded assets. Running on an xbox one.
Also a lot of e3 stuff is oftentimes targeted visuals. Sometimes they'll use straight up prerendered cgi, other times they'll use in game engine but it's not running in real time, and at other times it's running in engine and in real time but on really high end hardware. Often times they just create assets to show those targeted visuals. The whole thing is pretty fucked and this is why you should always be skeptical of e3 trailers.
The game can still looks impressive for an open world game.
Low spec PC's and Nvidia/AMD proprietary tech which runs like shit.
Of course it can, it's still a great looking game. But people will always remember that it used to look better.
Goalpost is over here buddy.
No they won't, lol
They'll remember the great game that it was, not what it "could've looked like"
Because old games are still fun, console shitter
Low spec PCs and to get people to buy the console version over it.
I don't try to move anything. I just said it still looks good if you manage to mod it right.
It was my first post.
It's one of the best looking games period.
People just like to complain.
>console shitter
Swing and a miss there champ
If you were a developer and you had a to make a PC version of the game and console versions
which would you start on first?
PC version would be solely optimised for PC utilising its massive gpu/cpu capabilities, high resolution textures, post processing effects, mass LOD etc.
Then you would have to downgrade all these features or completely removed them for consoles because of the hardware limitation, getting the game to run smoothly with decent graphics at the cost of 30fps.
consoles will always be priority that's just smart business.
>the game used to look a lot better in previews
>B-BUT IT STILL LOOKS GOOD
No one said it looks bad -- just that it looked way better. Your insecurity is showing, shill.
Unlike consolefags I don't even care if they port it to console. I just want my nondowngraded optimized game.
The PC version sold more than the console versions, and still millions pirated it because of the downgrade. And their reputation was damaged so no matter what they do, their next game will sell less.
Also even console gamers are mad at the downgrade, you should stop treating your imaginary consumers as brain dead retards because they aren't as dumb as you think.
No, it isn't. The graphics were downgraded far too much. Good art style but shit tier graphics.
>you're not allowed to remember both the downgrade and what a good game it was
It still gets brought up in basically every Witcher 3 thread.
I don't even deny that it look better before. Are you fucking baiting or just plain stupid?
Why are you deflecting?
>No one said it looks bad
Yes they were and if the game ran at 30fps with a 980ti with hairworks off, how do you think the reaction had been?
If it looked as good as it did in the 2013/14 demo, it would likely have become the next "Can it run Crysis?"
my dick is bigger bruh
...And?
That's not even true you fucking retard, you don't even understand what was downgraded.
I don't know what article you're referring to
They didn't, because they were never in the game
Not really but it's also relevant
But Sup Forums has nothing to do with the rest of the world,
in 5 years it will hold completely different opinions,
And it's also shit
So why was the game downgraded?
I go on vidya sites outside of Sup Forums
Often there will be an E3 team and an actual team. The E3/marketing team just go overboard and do all the bullshots creating what they believe the real game will be like. Vertical slices are a thing.
Devs try not to release games that have incredibly noticeable difference on platforms. I believe having HD textures and effects being released as free dlc would be better since most PC owners have computers that are equal or barely stronger than current gen.
>because they were never in the game
Yes they were. The ENV system even indicates that there are still E3 assets in there and Nvidia worked with CDPR to develop tech that they showed was in game but removed from the final copy.
...
:(
>Yes they were
what are vertical slices, optimization, completed assets
Remember watchdogs, some of the e3 settings are accessible but not all of them andthe ones that are like the shadows and lighting still don't look as good as the e3 demos and are buggy.
you make the game on ultra
you turn down the settings to medium for consoles
holy shit how hard was that?
sometimes i wonder how you people even got this far in life.
pc ultra would be like rendershadowdistance=8
console would be like rendershadowdistance=3
this isn't fucking rocket science. it's easy as fuck to just turn off or turn down options for consoles, you don't have to design the game to run on consoles and then tack on some high res textures that aren't even high res for the pc version. you design the original 4k/2k/1k textures and then downsample them to 1k/512/256 resolutions with corresponding normal maps.
fuckin' A
Console devs tell the game devs to downgrade them to maker the consoles look better in comparison.
Ubisoft honestly believe that running their games at identical settings across consoles will "stop fanboys arguing"
To save resources on multiplatform development.
>you turn down the settings to medium for consoles
It's not that simple if the disparity is too great, for example if a model has a lot of geometry then that geometry has to be remodeled, on other areas like lighting/rendering then you have to work on two sets of code, on other things that rely on atmosphere like the number of objects/nps/foliage then optimization get all fucked up. Developers would end up working on two games. In the case of W3 it already runs on medium setting on consoles.
> if a model has a lot of geometry then that geometry has to be remodeled
>n other areas like lighting/rendering then you have to work on two sets of code,
>on other things that rely on atmosphere
Want to know how I know you know literally nothing about game development.
>we do a certain build for a tradeshow and you pack it, it works, it looks amazing. And you are extremely far away from completing the game...
>Maybe it was our bad decision to change the rendering system, because the rendering system after VGX was changed. There were two possible rendering systems but one won out because it looked nicer across the whole world, in daytime and at night. The other would have required lots of dynamic lighting
>The billowing smoke and roaring fire from the trailer? It's a global system and it will kill PC because transparencies
Yep he's quoting an article not talking at all about the finished E3 game that ran just fine on an Xbox One.
Look at this eneducated apologetic behavior and laugh.
>>The billowing smoke and roaring fire from the trailer? It's a global system and it will kill PC because transparencies
Oh that same system that's in the Batman and Assassin's Creed games? Amazing bro, simply amazing.
Bro you denser than Memaw's famous homemade nanner bread
>finished E3 game
>we do a certain build for a tradeshow and you pack it, it works, it looks amazing. And you are extremely far away from completing the game...
Can the game look this good on ultra? Is this mods? If so, which ones?
No, it was downgraded.
I never knew lighting could make a swamp look.....comfy.
lighting is very important in making things look good
Because pre-downgrade, the game wouldn't run well on even the highest end of hardware available at the time of release. And if it was released like that, players would complain about not being able to max it out
rich? no, i just know how to get the most out of what i have
Funny enough I'm actually playing FEAR right now.
>implying you need maxed settings to play a game
well witcher 3 is pretty bad optimized, so you should blame retarded slavs for not polishing it, not people with weaker hardware.
Even tho with gtx 1060 + i5 2500k (both oced) i have 60fps most of the time, with drops to 45-52 in some unoptimized forrest areas.
>Why graphical downgrade on PC exists?
Because of consoles.
Fucking retarded plebs hold everything back.
Making an entirely separate version for PC would have made it harder than just using a unified game version for all platforms, but yeah, there is no fucking excuse for what they did, Witcher 3 deserved better graphics and a better last act of the main story.
Because:
a) They've got a deadline and the game has to get out the door. These games cost millions to make and they need to demonstrate to executives/shareholders that they can turn a profit. There's very few companies like Rockstar that have the commercial freedom to take their time
b) It's (apparently) very difficult to optimise games on PC, due to the number of different system configurations. With consoles, it's only PS4/Xbox One
c) The audience seems to have grown used to this and they don't suffer any commercial consequences. God bless pre-orders!
I was getting 60 fps at maxed everything 1080p
I think this graph is bs
I run 780 sli
I was gonna get that monitor
I got the wide screen curved one in stead
> And their reputation was damaged so no matter what they do, their next game will sell less.
You actually believe that? hahahaha, the most awarded game of all time's reputation will be affected by the PC version not being as good as it was promised? Get out of here, you are really overestimating.
It's one of the best looking games out there. Jesus, you people are killing me.
Well, we definitely are richer than console babbies.
Downgrade is pretty much a commercial technique meant to artificially widen the potential buyer base. Think about it - upon reveal the game looks absolutely gorgeous and you're all like: shit, that looks good but there is no chance in hell it's going to run on my toaster. Then, between this very reveal and the actual release they downgrade the shit out of it, so that the anounced system requirements may look more poorfag friendly.
So a subtle behind the scenes downgrade is used to expand the potential player base, ergo wielding higher profits for devs and producers. Remember - almost every question can be answered by sking yourself (((cui bono))).
Except that's what low, med, high, ultra settings are for. So people with toasters can run it on low and The Donald can run it on Ultra
SLI Titans only ever means one thing - overcompensation for small benis.
And the bullshit they showed for marketing purposes would have made it the best looking game ever made, even beating Rise of the Tomb Raider, you just have to realize that the series started on PC so PC stupidity will always stick with the series for good and bad.
Console parity. Devs are required to make the graphics look the same in consoles.
Yeah, but far less people would be able to run the non-downgraded version originally shown upon reveal than the actual downgraded one. We're pretty much talking about maxing the shit up - a downgrade is meant to help more people max the game. Otherwise, you're right for obvious reasons.
>Well, we definitely are richer than console babbies.
Trust me you're not. Console gaming is a luxury in many countries where as regular old PC gaming far less expensive and far more accessible which is why almost the entire third world are predominantly PC gamers not to mention the bulk of the PC market globally are actually low end users because PC's gaming market revolves heavily around facebook tier f2p mmo games.
Combine the marjorty of the PC market with consoles being an easy to hit single target spec that still has a market for physical games allowing publishers to command higher prices of software and the result is most games optimized for those two end users and their platforms in mind. It's not only to widen the playerbase, it's to ensure you remain profitable in doing so. High end PC gamers are miniscule and simply cannot generate enough money to get the industry to cater to them
If anything I would be projecting because I'll never buy another CDPR game again, and there are others like me.
You forget that PC gamers can pirate games and we only didn't pirate CDPR's because they told the truth. They don't tell the truth anymore and we were the majority of their sales.
How fucking dumb are you really?
>Trust me you're not.
It's a fact we are though retard. PCs cost more and there are more games to buy. Consoles don't generate any money because they're for kids and kids have no money.
no they're not.
the mustards posting super rigs here are a rare minority
most pc gamers own older systems or just use their parents/work pc's, devs know this and would rather make a game look shit which opens it up to a bigger market
mustards holding back vidya with incompatibility issues from user to user
The game as it stands barely runs on the highest tier builds you can make at the best resolutions.
It's a great looking game, definitely, for what it is, one of the best ever.
It doesn't look anything alike on consoles, draw distances are fucked and all the foliage is billboards. On top of that, it runs at like 20FPS.
It couldn't be a more PC oriented game based on these observable facts.