You sir are amazing and know what the fuck you are blabbing about good job and keep it up
lol..Wasn't that debunked recently though (gameworks stuff)? I seem to recall reading something on NeoGAF that basically called bullshit on this whole story of Gameworks cutting off AMD.
OT: Demo? I don't need it honestly. Benchmark? Aw hell yeah. That would be very handy, to determine whether I need to upgrade or not.
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm not sure this is what happened to Bulletstorm, or if that was all of it. I played it and liked it, i agree withyour summation, but..I have little urge to play more of it. Maybe the world setting? Maybe the over-the-top presentation? Although that fight on the train vs the rolling Death Thing was pretty amazing. Yeah.
Case in counter-point: the leak of DXHR first area, very well received, generally perceived to have boosted reception.
Nicely summed up.
Part of it is, indeed, us. If we insisted on test-drive mindset, maybe we'd see more demos. It also illustrates how the software market is a toughie to play in.
The gap is that "Why would you buy a game without trying it first" is something we just accept now. If that was not the case, they'd have to come up with demos and games that were well-done and well-represented by the demos. Even if those demos were some kind of episodic or free-to-play early access trick.
Many things we insist on trying first. Books, movies, cars, homes, even food sometimes.
Then again, there are plenty of things we do buy without trying first. Microwaves, videocards, most foods, vacation packages.
And again, much of what that video states, accurately, has to do with adjustable values. Making a good demo is really hard to do? Get better/ Mad e abad game that your demo will reveal as bad? Make a better game. Overly hyped your game and afraid your demo will show it as it is? Don't overly hype your game.
But only we as a market can demand those changes. And we don't.
Part of it is, indeed, us. If we insisted on test-drive mindset, maybe we'd see more demos. It also illustrates how the software market is a toughie to play in.
The gap is that "Why would you buy a game without trying it first" is something we just accept now. If that was not the case, they'd have to come up with demos and games that were well-done and well-represented by the demos. Even if those demos were some kind of episodic or free-to-play early access trick.
Many things we insist on trying first. Books, movies, cars, homes, even food sometimes.
Then again, there are plenty of things we do buy without trying first. Microwaves, videocards, most foods, vacation packages.
And again, much of what that video states, accurately, has to do with adjustable values. Making a good demo is really hard to do? Get better/ Mad e abad game that your demo will reveal as bad? Make a better game. Overly hyped your game and afraid your demo will show it as it is? Don't overly hype your game.
But only we as a market can demand those changes. And we don't.
request a CD PROJEKT
Hello everyone,
from Colombia make this post to ask cd project to pick a playable demo of the game to kill this desire we all have for the witcher 3 and so end the q say the game is suffering casualties in the graphics.
q that's the only thing I ask and I think many would be satisfied with the demo, to at least play it this Christmas or early next year.
Thanks, and please support me
Hello everyone,
from Colombia make this post to ask cd project to pick a playable demo of the game to kill this desire we all have for the witcher 3 and so end the q say the game is suffering casualties in the graphics.
q that's the only thing I ask and I think many would be satisfied with the demo, to at least play it this Christmas or early next year.
Thanks, and please support me
NO DEMO what is this 1995? Benchmark to test performance and stability? Yes please. I have a feeling there were many topics about this already.
As valuable as it might be, we won't get it. If they had time to do one, they wouldn't have had to take a 12-week slip. Schedule slips do not leave time for adding features, even ones we may think are important. At this stage, any changes are more likely to be cuts than additions.
No matter how valuable a feature may be to us, getting the game shipped in some commercially reasonable state of completion is the purpose of taking schedule slips. Not adding anything, not at all.
No matter how valuable a feature may be to us, getting the game shipped in some commercially reasonable state of completion is the purpose of taking schedule slips. Not adding anything, not at all.
Well, I think it would be fine that, a few days/weeks before game launching, CDPROJEKT release a free benchmark and short playable demo of Wild Hunt.
PC players are so tired of unfinished games launched without optimization...Battlefield 4, watch dogs, even titanfall with source engine and no triple buffer option and frame drops!!
We, gamers, should not buy these companies's games. We, gamers, understand that it is highly difficult to release a game that runs 100% fine at most of pcs without a few post launch patches...but there is a difference between that and technical crap , totally broken games like those ones (and much more)
A company that believe in their own work should launch a benchmark/demo prior to launch. And I think CDPROJEKT is a serious studio.
So, sign this petition if you want to see a demo benchmark of final game before game launching.
PS: My english is bad, as you can see, but I hope you can understand this post
Well at least they could release system spec in January as scheduled before so I would know how much money I have to spend for my new rig!
Last edited:
According to the Far Cry 4 benchmarks posted in the system specs thread, AMD appears to have their drivers sorted out to better handle GameWorks effects. They've been doing a lot of work on their drivers lately so I wouldn't be worried about it. I'm sure there will be benchmarks posted by others after the game is released if you really want to see them first before deciding.
Making a benchmark demo would mean diverting attention from QA and polish and they cannot afford to delay the game again. We'll have to trust their requirements when they release them.
i5, gtx 900 series card(i.e 980 or 970) or an equivalent amd card, 8 gb ram and windows 8.1 and u will be good to go.we all know the game is going to be demading, and im sure it will run the game on low if u have a 560 ti or 570 or better but nothing below this.
No, it would not suffice. Given the thoughtless kangaroo court that tried and condemned the Game Awards footage without any evidence at all, it would be an incredibly dangerous thing to do. Anything publicly released has to be tested and packaged for release. This takes time and work, much more time and work than any outsider or armchair developer thinks it does.
---------- Updated at 11:11 AM ----------
That's a statement made in the absence of any evidence about the game's performance or the resources it requires.
A demo would most definitely not make sense for a large scale open world RPG like The Witcher 3, but for PC specifically I think that a benchmark tool would be immensely useful. It should be available both in the full version of the game but also as a free download. It's a given that people will have issues running the game as well as they would hope, and giving people the ability to benchmark their hardware before making a commitment would solve a lot of problems. I can already imagine the hundreds of posts with people complaining they can't get stable 60FPS at max graphics on their decade old set-ups.
Some sort of benchmark would be nice, not even to test myself, but to see tech sites like Anandtech and the like do some performance results for various cards from Nvidia and AMD.
Although the chances of it happening are pretty slim, so what I'm hoping is CDPR will be giving copies of the game before release to various tech sites like they do with reviewers.
That way we could see the performance differences between AMD vs Nvidia cards and decide which vendor to go with for Witcher 3, because I don't know about you guys, but I'm only buying a graphics card very close to release since W3 is the only reason to upgrade.
And I'd like to know I'm making the right choice before committing.
Otherwise I'd have to wait after release for techsite benchmarks if they're only getting copies at release time.
Honestly I don't see why people are asking now if they should buy a 970 or 980 etc. for Witcher 3.
If you're only upgrading for W3 then wait until May, since the new gen cards will be released by then and you'll be able to get better, newer cards, for more or less the same prices as the current line up.
Although the chances of it happening are pretty slim, so what I'm hoping is CDPR will be giving copies of the game before release to various tech sites like they do with reviewers.
That way we could see the performance differences between AMD vs Nvidia cards and decide which vendor to go with for Witcher 3, because I don't know about you guys, but I'm only buying a graphics card very close to release since W3 is the only reason to upgrade.
And I'd like to know I'm making the right choice before committing.
Otherwise I'd have to wait after release for techsite benchmarks if they're only getting copies at release time.
Honestly I don't see why people are asking now if they should buy a 970 or 980 etc. for Witcher 3.
If you're only upgrading for W3 then wait until May, since the new gen cards will be released by then and you'll be able to get better, newer cards, for more or less the same prices as the current line up.
Last edited:
They could just let people play the first 10 mins as a demo - if they pre-ordered. That way that 100GB download won't be all for nothing