Ignore the platform PR talk. They've not only contradicted themselves many times, we know PC version will operate at higher resolution with added features, better lighting, SSAO, etc. On the frame rate, nothing is in stone now and hopefully as they optimize, attaining 60 FPS will be easier. They can also patch and improve post release which is typical for them. But I'm afraid as we get into the dawn of next gen, this is the price we have to pay for a few years until the hardware catches up.
That's exact reason why Im gonna upgrade in no less than atleast 6 months, or even latter. Right now I will stick with my current gtx 760 and brothers gtx 780 and when times comes to REALLY upgrade, there will probably be even newer cards than 980 out there, what is gonna make 980 drop in price.
---------- Updated at 08:44 PM ----------
I know they didn't said that, nor did I. Read what I said..
Last edited:
The 30 FPS likely means that you're guaranteed not to go below 30 FPS. I'm sure that most of the time a GTX 770 or R9 290 will be well above 30 FPS though..
Targeting 60 FPS is really hard to do, even on PC. It's safer for them just to say 30 FPS..
I don't know why you keep erroneously extrapolating the similarities between consoles and PCs like this. PCs have way more horsepower this is true, but they also have way more overhead as well. A PC with the exact same specs as the consoles would likely NOT be able to run the Witcher 3 at all at the same settings as the consoles.
You're also underestimating the extremely high level of IQ and simulation found in the Witcher 3.. All of these pretty effects are going to be costly..
It's highly unlikely there's going to be a GTX 970 Ti. When the 980 Ti comes out, the GTX 980 will fall in price and will likely take over as the solid choice for a high end entry level card. NVidia should just discontinue the GTX 970, or make it strictly OEM..
I'm with you except for this. Surely there won't be any 970 Ti. And Nvidia would never discontinue the 970. If a 980 Ti will release 980 will definitely not fall in price to the point to be a better alternative to a 970...
As is your right. But I must say that steady 60 FPS has always been really difficult to get on cutting edge games for PC, because of API overhead.. That's the main reason why PC gamers overclock their CPUs. Look at the original Crysis for instance. It took YEARS before 60 FPS was achievable in that game on max settings. And it wasn't because the GPUs couldn't handle it. It was because the game used a single thread for rendering, and also because DX10 had quite a bit of API overhead which resulted in a major CPU bottleneck..
That's one of the things that DX12 is supposed to rectify. CDPR have hinted that they want to look at bringing the game over to other APIs after launch, so hopefully they may release a DX12/Mantle update that would resolve any CPU bottlenecks. That in and of itself would increase performance substantially and make a locked 60 FPS much easier to accomplish.
---------- Updated at 12:26 AM ----------
You're probably right. But NVidia is under a lot of pressure right now because they messed up the specifications, whether intentionally or unintentionally. In many countries, you can easily return products that have been falsely advertised for a full refund, and a lot of people are doing just that.
Here in the U.S, there are consumer protection laws depending on your state which give you protection against things like this. Retailers like Amazon are already accepting returns though, which is directly pressuring other retailers like Newegg to do the same. I ordered my G1 GTX 970s from Newegg, and I'm currently in the process of trying to get a refund for them.
Although I was happy with the performance of the G1 GTX 970s, I would never have ordered them in the first place if I knew their memory subsystem was so crippled compared to the GTX 980.
Last edited:
I see where you are coming from, but Crysis example is no longer an excuse for devs. They are making the game for people who expect that the product they buy will do it's justice on average mainstream mid-high PCs (which are ATLEAST on par with the consoles). We, constumers, are not to blame for having cards that are currently available on the market and not having the future cards that will only run game smoothly after 2 years of it's release (aka Crysis)... Crysis was nothing more but a tech benchmark demo for PCs hardware testing (atleast that's how it looked in many people eyes) and I HOPE Witcher 3 is nothing like that.
Like I said, people with recommended and above settings should atleast be able to run the game on the same low-medium graphics for 60fps. 30fps is nothing but absurd in PC gaming. It's 2015 ffs. One of the best CURRENT examples of what a good PC port is - is MGS:Ground Zeroes PC version. Im surprised how it's probably the first Real Konami's official PC port of the series, but yet it looks so fantastic on PCs and runs just as fantastic (even on PCs with lower specs).
All in all - Im not buying a benchmark demo for my PC, Im buying a game that I expect to run smoothly on release (atleast on those low console settings) with reasonable fps for PC gaming. I wish all the best luck to CDPR for their promises to become reality, but I will stay skeptical until I will experience the game myself.
Last edited:
"(atleast on those low console settings) "
Nothing was set in stone about console settings. Didn't a recent preview say that recommended will net you a solid 30fps with medium to high settings (similar to PS4 settings)?
Sorry if this has been answered, i'm late to the party.
Also, why the hell is the 290 listed as comparable in the system requirements with a bloody 770? Is AMD getting the shaft again?
One of the journalists who played the PC version (which was running on high or atleast medium/high) said that it looked noticeably better than any of the console versions, especially than Xbox 1. That makes me think that consoles are running on something between low/medium with maybe some options turned to high at some point.
Every preview i've read was of the game running on high (a 980 + i7 setup) and the primary differences being draw distance / slightly improved textures. The recommended settings isn't confirmed to be able to reach even high (which worries me greatly) which would fit in line with what CDPR have been saying (All 3 versions are identical) leading me to believe that the consoles are a mixture of high / medium (possibly some low) which also fits with their previous target (1080p @ high settings running at 30fps).
If there is a preview I missed which was the game running at high / medium then could you provide it?
@Thebull94 - we've just gone through a long, long thread about all of this, and while I notice that you've only just rejoined this discussion, I suggest you go and read through it to catch up on various opinions on this. I don't think most of us are really wanting to see a repeat of that particular discussion right now.
Nor do we want to see you asking the same question in multiple threads.
Nor do we want to see you asking the same question in multiple threads.
Likely because AMD's DX11 driver overhead is so much higher than NVidia's, which makes them more likely to be CPU bound. Another possibility is that CDPR is using deferred context rendering for NVidia, which also reduces CPU overhead. It's a driver feature that NVidia supports but AMD doesn't..
Not many games support that feature, but NVidia pushes it because they know it gives them an advantage. Project Cars supports it for instance..
It's a year old news but explains the hole "PC and consoles looks the same, no big differences" thing
http://www.cinemablend.com/games/NDAs-Prevent-Devs-From-Saying-PS4-Stronger-Than-Xbox-One-60406-p2.html
http://www.cinemablend.com/games/NDAs-Prevent-Devs-From-Saying-PS4-Stronger-Than-Xbox-One-60406-p2.html
I will do a Short Post with My average english :
Games that are currently Cross- Platform parity
- Evolve Confirmed : Textures Parity in Xbox one ; Ps4 ; Pc
- Dying light : Texture Parity in Xbox one ; Ps4 ; PC
- Witcher 3 Ceo confirmed : Texure parity In Xbox one - Ps4 - Pc ( Official interview is true; Please guys stop saying this is false )
- Draw distance will be nearly the same - Field texture - Vegetation - ( Pc version will have their special settings ( Hbao - Clothing - phsycs - Hairworks- resolution-
Ubersampling)
No matter how the game looks great in the last Gameplay ; Pc gamers who works hard to build ( Sli / crossfire configuration / High end graphics card ) want the game at the ultimate visual experience ; No matter if we run it on 30fps . We want the same equal effort of Witcher 2 . Is great to see newcomers to This franchise but please have a little respect of the people who make Cd project what is now .
If the only way to run at ultra settings would be with 3 way sli we dont care - Why ? Becouse pc gamers wait centuries to have one Truely pc game at 100 % ( Not ports )
What they are doing is the same policy of other companies to sell more in Consoles . I buy all their games and we wont stop until see what e3 gamplay showed us time ago
We want Witcher 3 Textures looks like this : There is no way that the last images looks the same :
Games that are currently Cross- Platform parity
- Evolve Confirmed : Textures Parity in Xbox one ; Ps4 ; Pc
- Dying light : Texture Parity in Xbox one ; Ps4 ; PC
- Witcher 3 Ceo confirmed : Texure parity In Xbox one - Ps4 - Pc ( Official interview is true; Please guys stop saying this is false )
- Draw distance will be nearly the same - Field texture - Vegetation - ( Pc version will have their special settings ( Hbao - Clothing - phsycs - Hairworks- resolution-
Ubersampling)
No matter how the game looks great in the last Gameplay ; Pc gamers who works hard to build ( Sli / crossfire configuration / High end graphics card ) want the game at the ultimate visual experience ; No matter if we run it on 30fps . We want the same equal effort of Witcher 2 . Is great to see newcomers to This franchise but please have a little respect of the people who make Cd project what is now .
If the only way to run at ultra settings would be with 3 way sli we dont care - Why ? Becouse pc gamers wait centuries to have one Truely pc game at 100 % ( Not ports )
What they are doing is the same policy of other companies to sell more in Consoles . I buy all their games and we wont stop until see what e3 gamplay showed us time ago
We want Witcher 3 Textures looks like this : There is no way that the last images looks the same :
Last edited:
I hope there will be option to reduce render distance. That would make huge difference in performance.
Only few rich PC gamers that is. The ones with middle/low end PCs want performance optimizations instead of pushing the "already at satisfactory level graphics" further and there are a lot more middle/low end PC users than high end users. I don't object if CDPR can do both but if they had to choose, they should choose performance optimizations at this point of polish mode.(Yes, "They'd rather not choose at all" and they are always in Polish mode, hahaha. PS: I make jokes and laugh at myself)
ok we get it. Now can we please get a mod to erase the same copy&paste posts this person made on other threads and have his post moved into the "obvious downgrade" obvious pile of shit posts =)
I can hardly stomach these self righteous attitude outcries that are just too far gone to reason with.
The others have just been deleted.
Next time, just report the post. Whatever your views on this, there is still no justification for escalating it.
@joacko_1990 - please do not spam the forums in future by posting the same thing in multiple threads. Also, please avoid stating what other PC gamers may want from the game, as your opinion can only be your own.
And this particular line of discussion remains closed until there is something NEW to discuss on the matter. Any further escalation will result in deleted posts.