It's getting very, very close to one. A lot of posts have just been removed as being off-topic, and if it continues, there will be definitely be a lock. And probably some people disappearing.Downgrade thread once more? I see incoming lock
When it comes to improving hardware in their machines Sony/MS are actually not the problem.
The problem is that console userbase is comprised of groups of people which are unwilling to pay/can not afford to pay/or don't care enough for improved hardware and its benefits.
Sony/MS would build $1000 console if there were enough people to buy it, but it's downright deadly for these companies to build too expensive console. Look what happened to Sony with original PS3 or MS with only $100 more expensive XBone [yes I know there were other issues with XBone, but price difference played a big role here.
Actually, yes a lot of them do care... a lot.
The comments I've seen on some console centric places...
Last edited:
well dont get me wrong but if IGN and CDPR says the games looks almost the same on consoles and PC then the good news is it will run in 4k (at least) on ultra on my GTX970 - and with 60fps on ultra on a 760 - this is of course when you compare the console hardware to PC hardware
according to digital foundry a ps4 is comparable to
CPU: Intel Pentium G3258
Alternative CPU: Intel Core i3 4150
Graphics Card: Nvidia GTX 750 Ti 2GB
Motherboard: MSI H81M-P33
RAM: 2x 4GB DDR3
it gets the same benchmark results on the same settings at least!
so it will run like a rocket on our PCs as its the same graphic wise, right?
according to digital foundry a ps4 is comparable to
CPU: Intel Pentium G3258
Alternative CPU: Intel Core i3 4150
Graphics Card: Nvidia GTX 750 Ti 2GB
Motherboard: MSI H81M-P33
RAM: 2x 4GB DDR3
it gets the same benchmark results on the same settings at least!
so it will run like a rocket on our PCs as its the same graphic wise, right?
Parity between an unchanging system that's practically old before it's even released, and an ever changing platform that is backed by major hardware manufacturers... sure.
People that believe such a thing will ever be possible also believed the next-gen hype... no offense. The only reason why consoles are still around at all are a) humungous marketing budgets on the part of Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo, and b) the huge number of people that believe said marketing and make aforementioned companies a boat load of money through mediocre games.
Wanna see what happens to a console that has neither? Remember the OUYA?
People that believe such a thing will ever be possible also believed the next-gen hype... no offense. The only reason why consoles are still around at all are a) humungous marketing budgets on the part of Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo, and b) the huge number of people that believe said marketing and make aforementioned companies a boat load of money through mediocre games.
Wanna see what happens to a console that has neither? Remember the OUYA?
The console market is brutally competitive, and the fallout from competition affects the way things are done and the continued viability of at least one important supplier.
The problem is, the competition is not on improving hardware but on selling to price-conscious consumers. In another thread, the importance of using BGA instead of socketed chips as a cost-cutting measure came up. Saving even just a dollar is a big deal when it means only a fraction of a percent in warranty returns.
Look what happened: MS tried to come out with a $500 console, and Sony undercut them by coming out with a $400 console. This kind of behavior isn't going away, and if MS and Sony agreed to release their next generation console at $1000 so they could both improve hardware, they would be up against an army of attorneys-general.
AMD is an unfortunate loser in this. They got their APU into both consoles, which was a big PR win. But the price they had to bid to win those orders doesn't earn them enough of a profit to make back their R&D costs.
---------- Updated at 06:03 PM ----------
The problem is, the competition is not on improving hardware but on selling to price-conscious consumers. In another thread, the importance of using BGA instead of socketed chips as a cost-cutting measure came up. Saving even just a dollar is a big deal when it means only a fraction of a percent in warranty returns.
Look what happened: MS tried to come out with a $500 console, and Sony undercut them by coming out with a $400 console. This kind of behavior isn't going away, and if MS and Sony agreed to release their next generation console at $1000 so they could both improve hardware, they would be up against an army of attorneys-general.
AMD is an unfortunate loser in this. They got their APU into both consoles, which was a big PR win. But the price they had to bid to win those orders doesn't earn them enough of a profit to make back their R&D costs.
---------- Updated at 06:03 PM ----------
No, because the comparison is badly done, a slow 8-core CPU offers very different capabilities from a fast 2-core, the GPU in the PS4 is a lot more capable than a 750Ti, and the comparison conveniently neglects to consider architectural and operating system overheads. These are much worse on the PC.
It's equivalent to a 7870. Not exactly.. impressive, at all. Due to it being easier to optimize for a PS4 it might seem to be "more capable", but alone, it's pretty subpar.
It is PR parity, and Asset Parity...
But just as we know "the same assets" don't run, or look the same on a (i7 4970 & GTX980) and (i5 2400 & GT430), we also all know that PC doesn't look and run the same on PS4 or XB1.
The same assets do 'look similar' enough to be recognisably from the same source, but the differences can be huge if the lower end isn't very carefully optimised.
Higher end graphics are trickier, because disproportionately more resources need to be thrown at the problem to obtain modest improvements over a certain point... Doubling the scalar for LOD distances on common clutter is possible, but immediately requires around 4 times the processing ~ more if there is additional overdraw with transparency and complex geometries. It only takes a few 'it's only twice as much' enhancements and the higher end machine is struggling, for no really significant gains.
But just as we know "the same assets" don't run, or look the same on a (i7 4970 & GTX980) and (i5 2400 & GT430), we also all know that PC doesn't look and run the same on PS4 or XB1.
The same assets do 'look similar' enough to be recognisably from the same source, but the differences can be huge if the lower end isn't very carefully optimised.
Higher end graphics are trickier, because disproportionately more resources need to be thrown at the problem to obtain modest improvements over a certain point... Doubling the scalar for LOD distances on common clutter is possible, but immediately requires around 4 times the processing ~ more if there is additional overdraw with transparency and complex geometries. It only takes a few 'it's only twice as much' enhancements and the higher end machine is struggling, for no really significant gains.
That is accurate, actually it's between a 7850 and a 7870. That's still twice the performance of a 750Ti. And it does not have to deal with Windows, WDDM, DirectX, or separate VRAM.
but they got almost the same benchmark results on the same graphical settings in diffrent games.
this shows the specs i posted compare very nicely with a PS4..
now i can run project cars on ultra @60fps on my GTX970 while the PS4 runs it on a mix of low and medium - there is a xml in PCars with the PS4 settings and guess what, when i use that on my PC i lock at 120fps and this is only because my monitor does not allow a higher framerate
the PS4 is heavily underpowered - so my conclusion:
if the witcher looks almost identical it will run great even on low-end PCs
now if this is not the case that would show that CDPR did not really care about the PC version and left it out unoptimized.
would not speak for them - and this is only in the case that the PC verison really looks almost identical to the consoles
if it looks waaay better i would have no problem with more performance cost
All this locking for threads that don't violate any forum rules is getting annoying.Downgrade thread once more? I see incoming lock
---------- Updated at 09:18 PM ----------
Looking amazing doesn't stop them from making it even more amazing when hardware allows. Didn't they plan it anyway? As far as I know they always said that PC versions will have more capabilities.
---------- Updated at 09:21 PM ----------
That's uncompetitive in my books. If they don't keep hardware up to date and refresh their systems once in 8 years it means they don't have meaningful competition.
Let's see.
Xbox 360 - 2005.
PS3 - 2006.
Xbox One - 2013.
PS4 - 2013.
That's an insane time in hardware evolution terms. Competition? Far from it. Low end hardware evolves same as high end one. So they clearly grew too comfortable because they had no competition in their sector.
Last edited:
You should probably read the recently posted FAQ. There is no more grace for unfounded claims of downgrading. One of the most persistent unfounded claims is the canard that TW3 was downgraded to make its performance on consoles look good. This thread was invaded by proponents of that species of FUD, and the moderators have been forced to clean it up with anti-aircraft weapons.
We have very different ideas of what constitutes competition. I have to defend mine for taking into consideration the unfortunate situation that if you get undercut in a consumer market such as game consoles and do not respond by competing for sales, you will not be around long enough to make your 5-year plan.
We have very different ideas of what constitutes competition. I have to defend mine for taking into consideration the unfortunate situation that if you get undercut in a consumer market such as game consoles and do not respond by competing for sales, you will not be around long enough to make your 5-year plan.
Last edited:
@GuyNwah: So let's imagine a hypothetical market where in addition to 2 lazy manufacturers who grew accustomed to slow pace, 8 more arrive, and most have sane upgrade cycle (let's say a new hardware release in a couple of years). Do you think the first two will sit idle and will continue their 8 years per release approach? Somehow I strongly doubt.
I guess the bottom line is that the game won't look exactly as in those early screenshots and bits and pieces of footage, but reasonably good or very good with everything cranked to ultra/uber and/or by tweaking the shit out of the config files.
Replicating the EXACT look from early development would probably require a major overhaul including (but not limited to) exchanging entire assets and textures, especially in the environment, which I guess is impossible at this point with everything 'baked in', so to speak. Not sure if CDPR would be willing to deliver on that subsequently by putting together another Enhanced Edition, since this would basically require the time and money they would probably want to put into Cyberpunk 2077. Which I guess will now be examined through the looking glass with extra attention, to put it lightly.
So yeah, mods it is then, once again. Nothing new here, been there, done that.
It's just sad to see this happening to a game by one of the last (ex-)stalwarts of PC gaming with no compromises and concessions but the times, they are a-changin'. You may not like this upside down approach in multiplatform development, with the lowest common denominator being the foundation instead of actually exhausting each platform's full potential, but that's just the way it is.
Sad but true.
Apparently you have to play ball, if you want to release on consoles, and this may or may not include some questionable contractual obligations even CDPR probably couldn't back out of. CDPR developers and employees gotta eat too and you want to at least cut even on the gazillion production costs as well, something that's I guess impossible by releasing on just one platform these days (and without going the crowdfunding path).
No doubt CDPR's intentions were good, with bringing the game to everyone, but it shouldn't suprise anybody that some people take a bit more of an offense to advertisment and promotional material that's turning out to be not exactly representative of the final product.
Replicating the EXACT look from early development would probably require a major overhaul including (but not limited to) exchanging entire assets and textures, especially in the environment, which I guess is impossible at this point with everything 'baked in', so to speak. Not sure if CDPR would be willing to deliver on that subsequently by putting together another Enhanced Edition, since this would basically require the time and money they would probably want to put into Cyberpunk 2077. Which I guess will now be examined through the looking glass with extra attention, to put it lightly.
So yeah, mods it is then, once again. Nothing new here, been there, done that.
It's just sad to see this happening to a game by one of the last (ex-)stalwarts of PC gaming with no compromises and concessions but the times, they are a-changin'. You may not like this upside down approach in multiplatform development, with the lowest common denominator being the foundation instead of actually exhausting each platform's full potential, but that's just the way it is.
Sad but true.
Apparently you have to play ball, if you want to release on consoles, and this may or may not include some questionable contractual obligations even CDPR probably couldn't back out of. CDPR developers and employees gotta eat too and you want to at least cut even on the gazillion production costs as well, something that's I guess impossible by releasing on just one platform these days (and without going the crowdfunding path).
No doubt CDPR's intentions were good, with bringing the game to everyone, but it shouldn't suprise anybody that some people take a bit more of an offense to advertisment and promotional material that's turning out to be not exactly representative of the final product.
there is no problem in other games looking way better on PC then on consoles
just take project cars where the PS4 game is actually the PC game on medium and low settings - no one complained and the consoleros like it.
why not give PC gamers the option to use their hardware to the max.?
it does not hurt anybody and everybody is happy
just take project cars where the PS4 game is actually the PC game on medium and low settings - no one complained and the consoleros like it.
why not give PC gamers the option to use their hardware to the max.?
it does not hurt anybody and everybody is happy
I honestly don't give two shit graphics; gameplay, atmosphere and sound are MUCH more important to me. However, I don't know if its because English isn't their first language but I find it laughable they are sugarcoating the difference between 900p and 1080p. I mean, really? Really? Come on!
well graphics is a big part of the atmosphere part that you seem to find important!
When i say graphics, I mean technology related aspects. Lighting, models, materials and shaders.
hmm.. so lightning has nothing to do with atmosphere?
Lighting as technology, see the revolution from static light maps to full global illumination.