Benchmark/demo petition before game launching

[Geralt_and_Ciri]

Can you tell me exactly what hardware you need to run this game at 60 fps @ 1080p using ultra settings and 4x MSAA (excluding ubersampling) ? of course the hardware above recommended specs will run better but my question is exactly what for this performance ? that's where a benchmark tool proves useful where you can change in game settings and judge your machine's ability.

An out door scene with good bit of distant sightings, vegetation, several NPCs, fire or rain effects leading to a faster fight scene or horse riding scene will give good estimation of what you need to run this game well at your desired quality and performance level.

It's not a waste of time, end of story.

You are making the pc, based only in a game ? also, you are telling me about your personal desire.
If you wanna know how your pc will handle this game, you can test that "in-game", because a Benchmark will tell you the perfomance of you pc under some circumstances, you have already a lot of programs for test your pc, this is almost like ask "invents the wheel again for me".
I prefer to see the developers working in the game, than in a perfomance test for some people that need see a specific scene.

 

[Scholdarr.452]

You are making the pc, based only in a game ? also, you are telling me about your personal desire.
If you wanna know how your pc will handle this game, you can test that "in-game", because a Benchmark will tell you the perfomance of you pc under some circumstances, you have already a lot of programs for test your pc, this is almost like ask "invents the wheel again for me".
I prefer to see the developers working in the game, than in a perfomance test for some people that need see a specific scene.

That's why I want them to release the prologue for free as a kind of demo (not necessarily before the release though).

Benefits:

• no time or big effort needed to make an "extra" demo level because it's already part of the game itself with all the care and optimization they give to the whole product
• people have much less incentive to download illegal versions just to "test out" the game (and if you once downloaded and installed a pirate version the incentive to buy the whole thing is much lower in many cases...)
• people who haven't played a Witcher game so far could just check its general "look and feel" out before buying the game for full price
• people could continue with their save game from the prologue when they've bought the full game
• people could benchmark their systems under "real game" circumstances in order to make good purchase decisions for new hardware and/or the game itself
• a free "demo kind of thing" would really be a great fit to CDPR's overall "gamer friendly" philosophy and would further strengthen their reputation in the industry and beyond (we need good examples to bring the industry back on track which includes stuff like free demos instead of paid betas IMO)

 

[tahirahmed]

You are making the pc, based only in a game ? also, you are telling me about your personal desire.
If you wanna know how your pc will handle this game, you can test that "in-game", because a Benchmark will tell you the perfomance of you pc under some circumstances, you have already a lot of programs for test your pc, this is almost like ask "invents the wheel again for me".
I prefer to see the developers working in the game, than in a perfomance test for some people that need see a specific scene.

Yes of course, I am a fan of this game so I am upgrading my PC for this. There is a lot of confusion on what will be needed to run it with desirable performance specially after the announcement that recommended specs are just for med-high settings @ 1080p. Since they are putting so much effort in graphics and making the game look beautiful it's obvious that most of the fans want to run this game with as much quality as possible and with good performance.

This is no ordinary game where you just judge the performance by looking at some videos or pictures, this is a game with scope larger than Skyrim and graphics matching Crysis level quality so asking for a benchmark has some merit here.

Additionally I don't like when people suddenly start cursing good devs like CDPR after game release just because the game won't run good on a wide range of machines, CDPR can avoid the element of surprise by releasing a benchmark/demo and telling people in advance that they need to upgrade and most importantly giving them an idea about what to buy.

 

[TheDeathRun]

That's why I want them to release the prologue for free as a kind of demo (not necessarily before the release though).

Benefits:

• no time or big effort needed to make an "extra" demo level because it's already part of the game itself with all the care and optimization they give to the whole product
• people have much less incentive to download illegal versions just to "test out" the game (and if you once downloaded and installed a pirate version the incentive to buy the whole thing is much lower in many cases...)
• people who haven't played a Witcher game so far could just check its general "look and feel" out before buying the game for full price
• people could continue with their save game from the prologue when they've bought the full game
• people could benchmark their systems under "real game" circumstances in order to make good purchase decisions for new hardware and/or the game itself
• a free "demo kind of thing" would really be a great fit to CDPR's overall "gamer friendly" philosophy and would further strengthen their reputation in the industry and beyond (we need good examples to bring the industry back on track which includes stuff like free demos instead of paid betas IMO)

I don't really think these benefits are quite as certain as you make them out to be. Based on the assumption that CDPR never had plans to release a demo (which is why this petition exists), one could easily say the following:

- Cutting out the prologue requires time and effort reallocated from optimization, no matter how small we believe those to be. Also, new marketing materials need to be created to spread word of the demo, because if a minimal number of people download the demo it will be seen in the studio as having been a waste of precious resources. You could say "release it after the game's release then!" To which I might agree, except they also already have plans - to patch the game and release DLC. Whether you believe patching and DLC are a worthier use of resources is another matter entirely; the point is that CDPR already has plans.

- Unless you've pirated games to benchmark your rig before (or personally know someone who has), I don't think we can speak for or assume we know the motivations of the pirate community as a whole. Not every pirate pirates for a benchmark. And if the demo is released post-launch: as a pirate, you have two options: a free prologue or a free game. Which sounds more attractive to you? But regardless, there is also a problem with using the prologue to benchmark.

- "...check out its general 'look and feel' out before buying it for full price". A sound argument, but you forgot to mention the people who would check its look and feel out and get turned off enough to not buy the game. You can't say these people were never going to buy the game anyway either, because that is a gross generalization and isn't true for every single case.

- This is a matter of personal preference, but it does matter in the overall scheme of things. For example, I would never do that. To me it would be like watching the first ten minutes of a movie a month before its release. It breaks narrative flow and reminds me more of a TV series instead. Then why not just not play the demo then? Well if the demo is also meant as a benchmark, then everyone with the same preference wouldn't be able to benchmark - which is simply downright unfair. The only way this would make sense is if it was released post-launch.

- The prologue is not representative of the full game. The Witcher 2's tutorial, prologue, and first Act ran buttery-smooth on my rig, but when I got to the Siege of Vergen it exploded into a glorious 10 frames a second. This will be even worse for The Witcher 3 - White Orchard is obviously nowhere near as intense as Novigrad, and in an open world game circumstances are far more unpredictable with what could happen onscreen.

- Finally, yes, while I agree it would look good for CDPR to put out a demo, they have monetary/resource expense vs profit to consider. After the near-bankruptcy post-TW1 period, I prefer to think that they are considering their expenses far more carefully especially considering the monumental cost of TW3 and its delays. Releasing the prologue is likely not in their plans, so given the numerous benefits and cons and general uncertainty of such a course of action, they aren't likely to do so ever. It's sad that they have to be subjected to this consideration, but that's reality for you.

 

[Scholdarr.452]

- Cutting out the prologue requires time and effort reallocated from optimization, no matter how small we believe those to be. Also, new marketing materials need to be created to spread word of the demo, because if a minimal number of people download the demo it will be seen in the studio as having been a waste of precious resources. You could say "release it after the game's release then!" To which I might agree, except they also already have plans - to patch the game and release DLC. Whether you believe patching and DLC are a worthier use of resources is another matter entirely; the point is that CDPR already has plans.

Grabbing a cup of coffee during work also takes away precious optimization time. Don't get me wrong, I know that everything comes with costs. It's all about compromises and decisions.

- Unless you've pirated games to benchmark your rig before (or personally know someone who has), I don't think we can speak for or assume we know the motivations of the pirate community as a whole. Not every pirate pirates for a benchmark. And if the demo is released post-launch: as a pirate, you have two options: a free prologue or a free game. Which sounds more attractive to you? But regardless, there is also a problem with using the prologue to benchmark.

I don't speak for everyone. I spoke about a higher incentive. Of course there could be a whole lot other motivations to pirate a game. But nevertheless you could perhaps bring SOME pirates to buy your game instead.

- "...check out its general 'look and feel' out before buying it for full price". A sound argument, but you forgot to mention the people who would check its look and feel out and get turned off enough to not buy the game. You can't say these people were never going to buy the game anyway either, because that is a gross generalization and isn't true for every single case.

Indeed, people could be turned away by the demo. But for what reason? One reason is that the prologue sucks. Well, that's totally in CDPR's hands. The prologue - as part of the game - shouldn't suck anyway. The other reason is that the demo player perhaps never really wanted to play the game in the first place and the demo didn't change that opinion. In that case nothing is actually lost. And no, this is no "gross generalization", this is just a general categorization with the included acknoledgement that there can be special cases. But like always, an exception doesn't always refute the rule.

- This is a matter of personal preference, but it does matter in the overall scheme of things. For example, I would never do that. To me it would be like watching the first ten minutes of a movie a month before its release. It breaks narrative flow and reminds me more of a TV series instead. Then why not just not play the demo then? Well if the demo is also meant as a benchmark, then everyone with the same preference wouldn't be able to benchmark - which is simply downright unfair. The only way this would make sense is if it was released post-launch.

The would be no break in the narrative flow at all if the demo wasn't released (long) before the actual release. And I think you also exaggerate a bit. A 100 hours game like Witcher 3 can't be played in one shot anyway. People often only have time to play games like that at the weekend so it will be a "broken up" experience anyway. I don't see why it would be bad to play the prologue let's say two weeks before release if you play the rest of the game for the next 8-10 weeks at the weekends or after work only...

- The prologue is not representative of the full game. The Witcher 2's tutorial, prologue, and first Act ran buttery-smooth on my rig, but when I got to the Siege of Vergen it exploded into a glorious 10 frames a second. This will be even worse for The Witcher 3 - White Orchard is obviously nowhere near as intense as Novigrad, and in an open world game circumstances are far more unpredictable with what could happen onscreen.

Maybe yes, maybe not. I actually doubt that the differences will be that big. The reason is quite simple: the game has to run at 30 FPS on console anyway, at every given time. So there might be no scene in which you have 100% more frames than in another scene. If the game is properly designed and optimized the fluctuations in framerate should be rather low. But of course there can be SOME varieties.

- Finally, yes, while I agree it would look good for CDPR to put out a demo, they have monetary/resource expense vs profit to consider. After the near-bankruptcy post-TW1 period, I prefer to think that they are considering their expenses far more carefully especially considering the monumental cost of TW3 and its delays. Releasing the prologue is likely not in their plans, so given the numerous benefits and cons and general uncertainty of such a course of action, they aren't likely to do so ever. It's sad that they have to be subjected to this consideration, but that's reality for you.

That's pure speculation and totally up to them. That doesn't refute anything of what I've said.

 

[TheDeathRun]

Grabbing a cup of coffee during work also takes away precious optimization time. Don't get me wrong, I know that everything comes with costs. It's all about compromises and decisions.


I don't speak for everyone. I spoke about a higher incentive. Of course there could be a whole lot other motivations to pirate a game. But nevertheless you could perhaps bring SOME pirates to buy your game instead.


Indeed, people could be turned away by the demo. But for what reason? One reason is that the prologue sucks. Well, that's totally in CDPR's hands. The prologue - as part of the game - shouldn't suck anyway. The other reason is that the demo player perhaps never really wanted to play the game in the first place and the demo didn't change that opinion. In that case nothing is actually lost. And no, this is no "gross generalization", this is just a general categorization with the included acknoledgement that there can be special cases. But like always, an exception doesn't always refute the rule.


The would be no break in the narrative flow at all if the demo wasn't released (long) before the actual release. And I think you also exaggerate a bit. A 100 hours game like Witcher 3 can't be played in one shot anyway. People often only have time to play games like that at the weekend so it will be a "broken up" experience anyway. I don't see why it would be bad to play the prologue let's say two weeks before release if you play the rest of the game for the next 8-10 weeks at the weekends or after work only...


Maybe yes, maybe not. I actually doubt that the differences will be that big. The reason is quite simple: the game has to run at 30 FPS on console anyway, at every given time. So there might be no scene in which you have 100% more frames than in another scene. If the game is properly designed and optimized the fluctuations in framerate should be rather low. But of course there can be SOME varieties.


That's pure speculation and totally up to them. That doesn't refute anything of what I've said.

Error was made debating point-for-point. Correction as follows.

This thread exists on the pretext that no demo is planned. Until proven otherwise, I will treat this assumption as fact. Consequently, any deviation from the current schedule set by CDPR will take away time for optimization. A "coffee cup" analogy is not only ridiculous, it is even fallacious as it fuels optimization. This is in total opposition to the reallocation of resources for a demo, which takes away from optimization. Point being: anything that does not contribute to the optimization process and/or does not follow the current schedule is both wasteful and risky. The game cannot be delayed a third time and cannot be released to complaints of poor optimization à la Unity, or shareholders will begin to question what they were told in the public press conference after the second delay. No shareholders, no company, no more games. Granted, perhaps some measure of hyperbole exists in the previous sentence but what is clear is that CDPR cannot afford to throw more unknowns into the equation that is TW3's development. Therefore:

It is imperative that CDPR stick to the schedule. No demo/benchmark means no demo/benchmark. Planned demo/benchmark means a demo/benchmark. Appealing for anything not already planned is pointless and possibly detracts from the actual game and its sales. The one time they actually tried to buck the schedule, they drowned in Elder Blood because they over-estimated themselves and did not allocate it enough time. A repeat of that would be unwise. That is all.

 

[WFMS2]

I said it once and I'll say it again, because it doesn't seem to have been brought up since, and I still feel it would be the best course of action.
If a benchmark isn't possible in their schedule, then I would just hope CDPR give PC hardware review / benchmarking sites copies of the game a week, preferably two in advance to test it out and show what sort of performance we'll be getting on various hardware configurations.
Just the same as they would be sending out review copies to reviewers a week or two in advance, what's so different to PC hardware benchmark sites?

It's clear Witcher 3 is one game that will push hardware to the limits, it would frankly be a stupid move on CDPR's part to not provide some way for PC players to gauge the sort of performance they can expect on such a title.

This method also wouldn't cut into the developers schedule like so many of you are worried about if they were to try and release a benchmark program for the gamers.
For obvious reasons, considering it would be handled along with the review copies on the marketing/ distribution side of the business, while the developers are busy making the game as best it can be.
I hope someone at CDPR considers this, if it hasn't been considered and implemented already.

 

[TheDeathRun]

I said it once and I'll say it again, because it doesn't seem to have been brought up since, and I still feel it would be the best course of action.
If a benchmark isn't possible in their schedule, then I would just hope CDPR give PC hardware review / benchmarking sites copies of the game a week, preferably two in advance to test it out and show what sort of performance we'll be getting on various hardware configurations.
Just the same as they would be sending out review copies to reviewers a week or two in advance, what's so different to PC hardware benchmark sites?

It's clear Witcher 3 is one game that will push hardware to the limits, it would frankly be a stupid move on CDPR's part to not provide some way for PC players to gauge the sort of performance they can expect on such a title.

This method also wouldn't cut into the developers schedule like so many of you are worried about if they were to try and release a benchmark program for the gamers.
For obvious reasons, considering it would be handled along with the review copies on the marketing/ distribution side of the business, while the developers are busy making the game as best it can be.
I hope someone at CDPR considers this, if it hasn't been considered and implemented already.

That's a good idea and would be cool if it was done, although I'm not sure how it's different from just waiting until the game is out and it's tested by benchmarking sites all the same. It's not like you can't wait a few days post-launch before deciding whether to grab a copy now or beef up your PC first

 

[GuyNwah]

There is a lot of optimism concerning the effect on schedule of releasing a demonstration product. It is unjustified, and unjustified in the extreme.

There is no such thing as a product that takes a minimal effort to release. Not unless you are foolish enough to believe that your reputation will not suffer over an ill-publicized, badly presented, unsupported, widely criticized distraction. I cannot believe CDPR is managed by that manner of fool.

Releasing any product at all takes a substantial effort. It does not take just a few developers just a few days. It takes effort from the entire product team, including management, marketing, distribution, and support. This effort is actually much greater than the development effort.

If the cost, when properly measured, of such a distraction is not a sufficient deterrent, the cloudburst of anger, FUD, and unfounded and unjustified criticism that has accompanied every other publicity release by CDPR on their own forum should be.

 

[WFMS2]

That's a good idea and would be cool if it was done, although I'm not sure how it's different from just waiting until the game is out and it's tested by benchmarking sites all the same. It's not like you can't wait a few days post-launch before deciding whether to grab a copy now or beef up your PC first

I just feel it'd be good if we got to see performance numbers before the game released, so that'd we'd have enough time to look at the performance of certain cards, and what sort of gap there will be between AMD and Nvidia performance, and to help decide what to upgrade to before the release of the game. I don't think anybody would like to wait until the game is released to see performance numbers and then have to wait even longer for a new GPU to ship.

There is a lot of optimism concerning the effect on schedule of releasing a demonstration product. It is unjustified, and unjustified in the extreme.

There is no such thing as a product that takes a minimal effort to release. Not unless you are foolish enough to believe that your reputation will not suffer over an ill-publicized, badly presented, unsupported, widely criticized distraction. I cannot believe CDPR is managed by that manner of fool.

Releasing any product at all takes a substantial effort. It does not take just a few developers just a few days. It takes effort from the entire product team, including management, marketing, distribution, and support. This effort is actually much greater than the development effort.

If the cost, when properly measured, of such a distraction is not a sufficient deterrent, the cloudburst of anger, FUD, and unfounded and unjustified criticism that has accompanied every other publicity release by CDPR on their own forum should be.

I'm not sure if this is directly in response to what I said with shipping out copies of the game to benchmarking sites the same way as they would for review sites.
If so I feel we might not be on the same boat.
I've never said it's not a significant effort to release a game, what I merely suggested is that in addition to sending copies to review sites, they could include a few benchmarking sites in that same list. It's obviously a bit more effort for the distribution side of the business to contact and arrange for a few benchmarking sites to receive copies of the game, but I don't see how this would introduce such extra ridiculous strain to do so.
The reason for my suggestion in the first place is because this game is seen as a title that will push hardware by many people and many of them are waiting to upgrade just for this game, in the same vein as Crysis 3 for example.
And it's a better solution than creating a benchmarking program, which WOULD take development time away form the game, but I fail to see how essentially sending out a few more review copies would effect the actual game developers efforts.

 

[TheDeathRun]

I just feel it'd be good if we got to see performance numbers before the game released, so that'd we'd have enough time to look at the performance of certain cards, and what sort of gap there will be between AMD and Nvidia performance, and to help decide what to upgrade to before the release of the game. I don't think anybody would like to wait until the game is released to see performance numbers and then have to wait even longer for a new GPU to ship.

Ah well I won't argue against that. It's hard for me to look at it from the same angle since I won't be getting a copy this year. Best of luck then, hopefully CDPR ships those benchmark copies.

 

[damascus57]

This thread might already be full of people wanting a demo, but I'm here to explain my case.

- Demo would be comparatively easy to make. Create a separate build of the game that includes content from Kaer Morhen Flashback an White Orchard, end the game before you come into contact with Yennefer or Travel to Vizima, just like we did in the Outskirts, and show a trailer for the full product.
- A free demo of a AAA game would spread like wildfire over steam. Free content (psstt... 16 free dlc's guys) turns heads like nothing else.
I don't understand if there's a legal part of this or some other logistic that's preventing you guys from doing it, but you're working on content for expansions now. You clearly have the labor and time resources to do it.
I want to be able to convert people into Witcher fans by just linking them a demo, as opposed to going through this conversation over and over:

"I don't want to spend 90 bucks on a game I don't really know if I"ll like. Is there a demo?"
"No, you'll just have to trust me and all the reviews that give it 5 stars. Imagine if Skyrim, Dark Souls and Mass Effect had a baby. You love those games."

Every single time I feel like it's my responsibility to sell the game to people, because if I don't I feel like I'm doing CDProjekt a massive disservice. Only like 1 person I know bought the witcher 2 after my recommendation, and he only did during a Steam sale when it was $3.99.

I became a Witcher fan after I played a free demo I got in a PC Powerplay Magazine years ago. I wouldn't have known or heard of it otherwise.
I'm sad. Maybe Microsoft or Sony have it as some clause in their contract and that's why I haven't heard a thing about it. But some easier way to convince my friends to get into the Witcher would be great.

 

[minicrom]

Just need something to help making my new PC config Please CDPR ^^

 

[mecha_fish]

I personally don't think a demo is a great idea, most of the reasons having already been stated. As for getting friends into the Witcher Universe -- well, I would personally just show them the game when you have it yourself. That's like a demo, right? I feel like, so close to release, there's no point in releasing a demo. We have so many gameplay videos that if you aren't sold on those, I doubt a demo will make that much of a difference. I would rather the final product in my hands, to be honest.

Plus they've given us the system requirements and there's system testing sites all over the internet. Is a "benchmark" different to these?

 

[thislsmadness]

This thread might already be full of people wanting a demo, but I'm here to explain my case.

- Demo would be comparatively easy to make. Create a separate build of the game that includes content from Kaer Morhen Flashback an White Orchard, end the game before you come into contact with Yennefer or Travel to Vizima, just like we did in the Outskirts, and show a trailer for the full product.
- A free demo of a AAA game would spread like wildfire over steam. Free content (psstt... 16 free dlc's guys) turns heads like nothing else.
I don't understand if there's a legal part of this or some other logistic that's preventing you guys from doing it, but you're working on content for expansions now. You clearly have the labor and time resources to do it.
I want to be able to convert people into Witcher fans by just linking them a demo, as opposed to going through this conversation over and over:

"I don't want to spend 90 bucks on a game I don't really know if I"ll like. Is there a demo?"
"No, you'll just have to trust me and all the reviews that give it 5 stars. Imagine if Skyrim, Dark Souls and Mass Effect had a baby. You love those games."

Every single time I feel like it's my responsibility to sell the game to people, because if I don't I feel like I'm doing CDProjekt a massive disservice. Only like 1 person I know bought the witcher 2 after my recommendation, and he only did during a Steam sale when it was $3.99.

I became a Witcher fan after I played a free demo I got in a PC Powerplay Magazine years ago. I wouldn't have known or heard of it otherwise.
I'm sad. Maybe Microsoft or Sony have it as some clause in their contract and that's why I haven't heard a thing about it. But some easier way to convince my friends to get into the Witcher would be great.

I doubt it has anything to do with MS or Sony. At one point Sony wanted to do 60 minute trials for every game and there was barely any interest from industry folk. My understanding is that the reason demos have gone away is because market research shows that there is only one scenario where demos have a significantly positive effect on sales.. and thats when you have a really bad game, with an awesome demo. In cases where the actual game is really good the effect of a demo is marginal at best, things like review scores and word of mouth and general marketing are far more effective at converting buyers. So even though you may not have known about the Witcher when you played that demo, they think that all the positive press and attention the game got post-release would have led you to it anyway.

The other layer to this is that an awesome demo is actually difficult to pull off, especially in an RPGs where things are more of a slow burn. Even a demo thats just "OK" can turn people off to a game. So instead of spending resources creating something that has the potential to hurt your game, publishers prefer to apply that elsewhere.

 

[octavian123]

Yes please...at least a benchmark

 

[Guest 2006359]

A benchmark would be awesome

 

[il_corleone_manu]

A Demo maybe not, but a Benchmark would be perfect, Please CDPR

 

[D@tChM@n52]

I agree with this one.

 

[MaxItOut]

Benchmark would really be reasonable. I myself do own only a Notenbook, yes an Alienware, BUT Notebooks aren't as fast as normal PCs. (in high-end terms)
Now I have a PS4 too, and now do not know which one to preorder ...
A Benchmark would clear this out, for sure.