Console and PC parity

[johnblah1231]

Lighting as technology, see the revolution from static light maps to full global illumination.

yes and this technology can do very much for the atmosphere

just look at this comparsion shots and tell me this has nothing to do with atmosphere:
http://imageslgmr.lazygamer.netdna-cdn.com//2015/05/5-gQybtzD.jpg
http://imageslgmr.lazygamer.netdna-cdn.com//2015/05/4-gLQRd7N.jpg

 

[SpotEnemyBoats]

yes and this technology can do very much for the atmosphere

just look at this comparsion shots and tell me this has nothing to do with atmosphere:
http://imageslgmr.lazygamer.netdna-cdn.com//2015/05/5-gQybtzD.jpg
http://imageslgmr.lazygamer.netdna-cdn.com//2015/05/4-gLQRd7N.jpg

There's alot of static lights there and very few dynamic lights. A technical choice from the level designers.

Other than that, a major change from contrast and color.

 

[volsung]

I'm tired of this. I think a reasonable way to see this is: if there are tons of potential sales coming from console owners, why not make trailers with the footage THEY will see? Worst case scenario, PC gamers are floored when they see what the real game looks like. The other way around, console gamers protest about the game being downgraded (which PC gamers are doing now without having actually played it yet).

We saw a bunch of possible graphics settings on the XML thread. If you ask me, I do think the game looks a bit different in its current version but what do we even know about it? We don't know how complete or stable it was in the early demos and we don't know if CDPR would have been able to pull off an entire game with that level of detail. We also don't know if they are using visual settings for trailers that simply give realistic expectations to the average (console) gamer.

If it really does lack assets, I'm sure they could distribute a texture pack later on. This happened with DA2 (a game no patch could save).

In any case. We're either positively surprised with awesome PC graphics that CDPR hasn't mentioned because they want those console sales, or we get a game with excellent gameplay and better than average graphics anyway. If it looks anything like the 35 minute gameplay video, that's seriously good.

Like others said, it you truly like PC games there's a whole bunch of turn based strategy and cRPG out there that isn't affected by whatever goes on in the console universe.

 

[Sardukhar]

Parity is a funny duck.

As a producer, you're expected to make the product viable for as many people as possible, technically, within a ceetain set of limitations. An often arbitrary set. What do I mean?

Well, people were quite cheered when they heard W3 was for Next Gen only and PC. People assumed PC didn't mean it would also run on a 486 and Windows 98. That would be unreasonable.

Apparently, the massive user base that is X360 and PS3 users is also unreasonable. You are expected to "keep up", even though for quite a lot of people, $400 is a lot to spend on a new platform.

Now as a high-end PC user, it is also unreasonable for me to expect CDPR to cater to my needs, which represent something like 1/2 of 1% of the user base. And would leave most people complaining or concerned about user parity out of luck as well.

Does everyone remember the concern with W3 System Requirements? Many were and are worried they won't be able to keep up.

So where is this invisible line? At which point do you accept that, yes, the game engine isn't going to run only on a $3000 PC but also not on a $300 PC?

Is it installed user base? Xbox 360 has 83 million units sold; Xbox One has 3 million. A smart producer would aim for those 360 users. Windows 7 and XP both have far more users than 8.1 - ignore 8.1?

Where does a producer aim: to satisfy his global market or the small percentage of high-end users? Witcher 3 would look amazinger, no doubt,if it was properly tuned to run on a minimum of a Radeon 290x, Geforce 980, but how many of you could play it?

Who decides that? At what point do users say, "sure, it's okay if I can't run it"? As soon as you, the user, pass those requirements?

Because if that was the case, I'd like everyone not packing an expensive high-end system to kow-tow to my needs!

 

[Gilrond-i-Virdan]

I think such cases are usually tackled with optional features. That was always the case, no? I.e. if you have the latest and greatest hardware - good, you can switch on feature XYZ that would load it to the brink and would make the game look better. And if you don't have such hardware, the game will use some lower set of settings. Are you saying it's not possible in the case of TW3? And if it is, what's the concern then?

I guess developing such highly modular engine where you can plug in various features of different performance intensity is harder than making a uniform one, but if you target a heterogeneous set of hardware platforms it inevitably happens in one way or another.

 

[hamzanoor]

have sane upgrade cycle (let's say a new hardware release in a couple of years)

I don't think a lot of people want to spend 400$ or more, every couple of years. And the amount of waste it will produce.
BTW where do all these used/old graphics cards and consoles end up ?

 

[Gilrond-i-Virdan]

I don't think a lot of people want to spend 400$ or more, every couple of years. And the amount of waste it will produce.
BTW where do all these used/old graphics cards and consoles end up ?

So, why doesn't it stop PC manufacturers from bumping their hardware at around that pace? Because there is competition that's strong enough. And because PC market is more open, where OS is decoupled from hardware and anyone can compete, instead of sick lock-in of one hardware + one OS that's going on on current consoles.

You don't need to upgrade your PC with every new CPU or GPU coming out. As long as it performs well enough for you still. So I see no reason why it can't happen with consoles the same way. Consoles only suggest a different playing style (i.e. controller vs keyboard and mouse). There is nothing in them that should make them inherently different from PC hardware wise. I.e. they as well can be modular, allowing you to upgrade parts which you want at your own pace (for instance GPU), without the need to upgrade it in full and so on. So this argument that "it's hard to upgrade so often" doesn't really fly, because there is no need to, but it shouldn't stop hardware from moving.

 

[volsung]

Considering all computers are different and have different hardware configurations, it'd be pointless to design any kind of software (specially a game) for a specific target platform, down to the level of GTX 980 or R290X. All software is (should be) scalable. Otherwise people wouldn't benefit from increasing their resources, such as RAM or a newer GPU.

I know little of game development but enough of high-performance computing. You need to solve a problem and you have a computer. Make the program perform as well as possible, but also make it possible to modify the variables affecting performance/results. Specially nowadays where the line between consoles and computers is so thin and blurry, we should expect software to behave better across different platforms. This is by the way one good reason so switch to standard technologies and leave behind restrictive, proprietary tools already.

Since all consoles are created equal, games may ship with predefined configuration values that already get the most out of the system. But computers are by definition open platforms and precisely one point of playing on the computer is having the ability to set things up the way we like it. The answer to Sardukhar's dilemma is simple: games should be designed for the most reasonable platform that meets the technological requirements to realize the artists' vision, but should include options to increase quality/performance to our tastes. In this scenario, it makes sense to advertise the game with the average looking footage, because the average customer has no idea what their computer/console is capable of. Sadly the most reasonable platforms have been consoles for years now, not only because they keep getting comparatively stronger but because of their massive user base. All I'm hoping is CDPR will remain a PC-centric developer, which in this case means developing games everyone can play but customizable enough to challenge powerful computer hardware.

 

[ShivaSi]

Oh, the never-ending false-issue of downgrading ...
CDPR has to make a living with this game. And first they have to earn enough money to cover the development expenses (3yrs x 250? people ++ ).
Having a single codebase for PC and consoles means easier maintenance and a smaller team to do it. Also means shorter release time. It also means people with medium-high PC configs will be able to play it well.

Every developer wants to deliver the best of the best but that will mean never to deliver it (Netscape browser story, anyone?). Instead you settle down with an ok version and enhance it as you go. It you have time and you're allowed by management.

Does TW3 deliver a consistent and beautiful story? YES. Does it deliver beautiful graphics? YES. Then enjoy it on whatever platform you're playing,

 

[hamzanoor]

So, why doesn't it stop PC manufacturers from bumping their hardware at around that pace? Because there is competition that's strong enough. And because PC market is more open, where OS is decoupled from hardware and anyone can compete, instead of sick lock-in of one hardware + one OS that's going on on current consoles.

It doesn't stop PC manufacturers because some people are willing to spend that kind of money , others want a product with a longer life cycle since they can't afford to buy new hardware after every 2 or 3 years.

At the same time longer life cycles help in reducing the sheer amount of waste we produce.

http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/50m-tonnes-ewaste-designers-manufacturers-recyclers-electronic-junk

The developing world is becoming the west's digital dumping ground. Every year around 50m tonnes of unwanted electronic devices make their way to vast e-waste dumps in Guiyu in China and Agbogbloshie in Ghana – often illegally.

 

[dragonbird]

I think such cases are usually tackled with optional features. That was always the case, no? I.e. if you have the latest and greatest hardware - good, you can switch on feature XYZ that would load it to the brink and would make the game look better. And if you don't have such hardware, the game will use some lower set of settings. Are you saying it's not possible in the case of TW3? And if it is, what's the concern then?

I guess developing such highly modular engine where you can plug in various features of different performance intensity is harder than making a uniform one, but if you target a heterogeneous set of hardware platforms it inevitably happens in one way or another.

But this presumes that all of these features are just a question of flicking switches. Yes, some are, but others need to be designed into the game. One obvious example is volumetrics - sure, you can turn on volumetrics in a game, but there have to be the volumetric assets there in the first place. How much time and effort should go into developing these assets if less than 1% of players are going to be able to use them at launch? I suspect that the same applies to features like the pseudo-GI that was PR'd recently. Lighting a scene with GI is different to lighting for a non-GI method, the effort shoots up if you have to cater for both.

 

[Gilrond-i-Virdan]

It doesn't stop PC manufacturers because some people are willing to spend that kind of money , others want a product with a longer life cycle since they can't afford to buy new hardware after every 2 or 3 years.

As I said, same can happen with consoles, as long as there will be more choice. That's what Steam Machines idea is about, as far as I understand.

---------- Updated at 03:26 AM ----------

But this presumes that all of these features are just a question of flicking switches. Yes, some are, but others need to be designed into the game. One obvious example is volumetrics - sure, you can turn on volumetrics in a game, but there have to be the volumetric assets there in the first place. How much time and effort should go into developing these assets if less than 1% of players are going to be able to use them at launch? I suspect that the same applies to features like the pseudo-GI that was PR'd recently. Lighting a scene with GI is different to lighting for a non-GI method, the effort shoots up if you have to cater for both.

Yes, I agree that effort can be bigger for some of them. But on the other hand rewriting the engine itself is not a small effort too. So I don't think it's impossible for CDPR to add features that will target newer PC hardware in enhanced edition, even if they won't be usable on some consoles.

 

[Sardukhar]

So I don't think it's impossible for CDPR to add features that will target newer PC hardware in enhanced edition, even if they won't be usable on some consoles.

I certainly hope so, especially as Windows 10 and DX 12 are vageuly en route.

The question is feasibility vs cost vs reward. I think an enhanced edition will make a great post-release seller and lovely bonus for current owners, but if you were doing it, what part of your budget would you devote to quests, gear, engine optimizations and new features?

Keeping in mind that the more things your userbase can access, the better it is for you as a content producer.

There's no way around it - other than a showpiece feature, there isn't a lot of fiscal or audience value in producing features 1 to 10% or so of your installed base can use to any effect.

 

[wildspirit]

Oh, the never-ending false-issue of downgrading ...
CDPR has to make a living with this game. And first they have to earn enough money to cover the development expenses (3yrs x 250? people ++ ).
Having a single codebase for PC and consoles means easier maintenance and a smaller team to do it. Also means shorter release time. It also means people with medium-high PC configs will be able to play it well.

Every developer wants to deliver the best of the best but that will mean never to deliver it (Netscape browser story, anyone?). Instead you settle down with an ok version and enhance it as you go. It you have time and you're allowed by management.

Does TW3 deliver a consistent and beautiful story? YES. Does it deliver beautiful graphics? YES. Then enjoy it on whatever platform you're playing,

I totaly agree, and my point is not to polemics about a "downgrade" but rather the way CDPR has handled things until know showing next to nothing to PC players and continuing to promote the game with older footage and screenshots on which we can see an obvious difference, and telling people we would be amazed and thus maintain some sort of hope by focusing on the PS4 version.

I would have forgave CDPR if they had been honest from the get go, telling people they were cutting most of the shiny NVIDIA features (because who can seriously believe they are still in there now that we've seen the game running on Ultra?) but no, they had to keep some sort of composure to keep selling a product with which looks like false claims.

Don't get me wrong, It's not a bashing, I know for a fact that the gaming industry in harsh, and you have to make difficult decision everyday in terms of content and technologies (hell I work in an independant studio and we're facing this kind of problem atm) BUT at least, we're not lying to ourselve or the players. I expected more honesty from CDPR, that's all.

They're clearly taking the path of the console gaming over PC community, which, again, I can understand if they can benefit from it, but like many companies these days, they aren't doing it very well by either lying or hiding the truth.

Nonetheless, I'm still gonna play the game and enjoy it, but I will never be able to trust in CDPR ever again (one more studio that betrayed his fanbase) unless all of this is a terrible misunderstanding and we're in for a big suprise on the 19th... But well, I'm to old now to believe in fairy tales.

So:
- does TW3 deliver a consistent and beautiful story? YES, reviews seems to point in the good direction.
- does it deliver beautiful graphics? YES and NO. No one denies the quality of graphics we've seen But it's not what has been advertise these past few months. At least everythin we've seen so far point to that. I see beautiful screenshots and videos on STEAM / GOG, I would expect to see this In GAME. So it's tricky, but it's still great. Not amazing.
- does CDPR has bad PR and falsly advertise the game to the PC community: looks like it.

Mods will probably not like this post, there has been a lot of tension these past few days, but once again, I'm not trying to put oil on the fire, I'm just expressing my disapointment with some argumented points. I've always been a fan of CDPR and Witcher series, and the hype has been real so I guess it add to the feeling of betrayal. I hope I'm wrong and that we'll have some kind of explication or official statement some day though.

 

[sidspyker]

telling people they were cutting most of the shiny NVIDIA features

FUD. What Nvidia features have been cut suddenly? Let me guess you're talking about the "2013 Nvidia Effect" video which is talking about standard REDENGINE 3 FEATURES and NOT any Nvidia effects, please find me any single source where Nvidia is providing those things and since when?

That's a small segment of the whole conference video where they were showing off TW3 stuff, the conference was held by Nvidia and at one point they showed off some TW3, the same event in which the Wolf Fur was also demonstrated. And on what basis are you saying they've been removed? Decals haven't suddenly disappeared(the bug not withstanding), reflections are still there so what exactly?

 

[wildspirit]

FUD. What Nvidia features have been cut suddenly? Let me guess you're talking about the "2013 Nvidia Effect" video which is talking about standard REDENGINE 3 FEATURES and NOT any Nvidia effects, please find me any single source where Nvidia is providing those things and since when?

That's a small segment of the whole conference video where they were showing off TW3 stuff, the conference was held by Nvidia and at one point they showed off some TW3, the same event in which the Wolf Fur was also demonstrated. And on what basis are you saying they've been removed? Decals haven't suddenly disappeared(the bug not withstanding), reflections are still there so what exactly?

Bloom shafts, aerial perspective fog, volumetric fog and smoke, volume base translucency, soft particles, water and terrain tessallation...

Because quite frankly, I didn't see any of those features on the stream that was held by IGN yesterday. And looking at the option menu (a quite poor one at that for a PC game) I don't see any way to activate those.

But once again, I'm not saying they promised any of those things and that we're entitled to have them, but when I look back to 2014 footage, some of these features were in, and it looked much better than what we've seen. And in the time laps between now and then, absolutely nothing has been said from CDPR about those things.

So maybe I'm not using the right terms and It's not Nvidia's stuff but rather engine's stuff that has been toned down or gutted, but once again, without official statements from CDPR other than "you'll be amazed", it's kinda difficult to accept those "missing" features.

So yeah, I think they havn't been very truthfull with us, but who knows, as we've said earlier, PR stuff can be pretty damn complicated when MS and Sony joins the party =(

 

[sidspyker]

Bloom shafts, aerial perspective fog, volumetric fog and smoke, volume base translucency, soft particles, water and terrain tessallation...

Alright, let me do this step by step:

We have seen tons of footage with sun shafts (sunshafts/lightshafts/bloomshafts/godrays they are all are the same thing)

Volume Based Translucency is there. Look at the plants. Look at the tree on the extreme left for example, you'll see leaves have the translucency.

"Volumetric Mist" was cut yes I'll give you that, tech director didn't allow for it however they said they'll keep pushing for it. We don't even know WHAT exactly got cancelled because it was translated and it said "mist".

Not sure what you mean with "Smoke", there's hardly any footage with much smoke anyway. Plus we don't know much about GPU PhysX in TW3 so maybe that's how they're doing it?

Huh? Water tessellation is still there, we even found settings for it in the game, water looks better than ever, I'd even go as far as to say it's the best looking water I've ever seen in any game.

Likewise I don't see any kind of proof that Terrain Tessellation was removed, and that's aside from the fact that it doesn't even cost anything these days.

What makes you say particles aren't soft anymore? We really don't know the properties of particles used in the game that's something nobody without vast experience could tell you. If you're thinking it's "fire" then it's not, it's the particles system used by the whole game.

I see I forgot to address Aerial Perspective Fog:

• Sky and air – atmospheric scattering of even tiny air particles causes that we can see any sky at all! Specific wavelengths of sun light (mostly blue ones) get scattered out of its original path and without them, sky would be black with only far, radiant objects like stars and galaxies visible! Non-uniform scattering of different wavelengths cause sky to have different color gradients and different behavior at various different times of a day. Blue tint of distant objects even in sunny weather is called “aerial perspective” and just like sky is caused by very subtle Rayleigh scattering.

Again, clearly visible in almost every screenie.

But I still don't understand why the game looks so much different than what we've seen on screenshots and videos. I don't want to believe it, but it's so obvious that it can't be only a matter of colour palette and draw distance.

Well, I can't answer that, I do have 'theories' on what you may be finding different, but I don't know if that would serve any purpose - bottom line is most if not all changes are artistic, not technical.

 

[ShivaSi]

A possible scenario:
- lots of pressure to meet the April 16th deadline since it was already delayed twice
- bugs were triaged and the high priority ones got fixed by either code fix or reducing the graphics details others remained to be fixed in the D1 patch
- since performance improvements exists in the D1 patch, they did not announced the "bad" news that some graphics were scaled down. Because of marketing dept. or because of the confidence they had that they can fix it until May 19th.

/later edit: We should not judge games, especially RPG games by their graphics. Gaming industry it feeding us with big words, making us go pixel hunting. It's easier to make wonderful graphics than to produce a great story.

 

[wildspirit]

@sidspyker: well then, I maybe wrong and i'll be the first one to apologies if need be. Maybe the hype got the better of me.

But I still don't understand why the game looks so much different than what we've seen on screenshots and videos. I don't want to believe it, but it's so obvious that it can't be only a matter of colour palette and draw distance.

And since CDPR is doing some sort of ostrich politics (as putting their head in the sand and not telling anyine anything) by not adressing the fan concerns, it's kinda difficult to understand.

@sidspyker thanks for clearing this technical stuff out

I guess I'll see for myself comes the 19th.

 

[delnac]

"Volumetric Mist" was cut yes I'll give you that, tech director didn't allow for it however they said they'll keep pushing for it. We don't even know WHAT exactly got cancelled because it was translated and it said "mist"

I think there is a misunderstanding on the nvidia REDengine demo regarding this. Like you said, aerial perspective fog is the simulation of atmospheric light scattering but in that footage it seemed to only be a white mist above ground. I didn't understand that until you mentioned this. So this effect might be what he was talking about.

Also about volume-based translucency, I'm not sure. The footage we have show that the engines does simulate a first level of translucency on backlit faces of foliage. I'm struggling to find a good lighting condition to show what to look for to dispel the FUD about this one (dense concentration of leaves near the center of a backlit tree).

About the console parity thing, CDPR has been walking on eggshells given the stigma of the last gen of consoles. I'm guessing Marcin and the PR guys are going to be taking one hell of a vacation this summer .

It's easier to make wonderful graphics than to produce a great story.

*slow clap*