Witcher 3 - CD Projekt tackles downgrade issue

Hexprone

Hexprone

Thou hast lost an eighth!
Joined
January 30, 2012
Messages
1,192
Location
San Francisco
Apparently there is some kind of controversy about the graphics in the commercial release of The Witcher 3 not matching a promo video from a couple of years ago. What do the people at CD Projekt have to say for themselves? They've talked with Eurogamer:
Eurogamer: Did the console versions restrict the PC version?

"If the consoles are not involved there is no Witcher 3 as it is," answers company founder Marcin Iwinski. "We can lay it out that simply. We just cannot afford it, because consoles allow us to go higher in terms of the possible or achievable sales; have a higher budget for the game, and invest it all into developing this huge, gigantic world.

"Developing only for the PC: yes, probably we could get more [in terms of graphics] as there would be nothing else […] But then we cannot afford such a game."
Click to expand...
Studio head Adam Badowski confirms that the trailer shown at the VGX tradeshow was captured PC footage of the game as it existed at that time, but that the rendering system was changed after the creation of the trailer, partly to avoid the demands of dynamic lighting in a huge open world.

Also , Eurogamer reminds us that:
a big patch with 600 changes - including improvements to graphics and graphical settings - was sent to certification today (Wednesday 20th May), and will take between five and seven days to clear.

In addition, CD Projekt Red will patch the game to allow editing of .ini files on PC, to push graphical settings even higher. You will be able to tweak grass and vegetation density, post-processing effects such as sharpening, and draw distances.

"And we think about some other tricks but we need time," Adam Badowski says.
Click to expand...
More information.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jan 30, 2012
Messages
1,192
Location
San Francisco
Hexprone said:
Apparently there is some kind of controversy about the graphics in the commercial release of The Witcher 3 not matching a promo video from a couple of years ago.
Click to expand...

No, not just one video from years ago. They continued to release screens and videos from the older and superior renderer, even as late as in march this year. E.g: http://www.dsogaming.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/igrashka.org_14272306796.jpeg

If you know what to look for (lightning on the character) you can see obvious differences. So they changed the renderering in 2013 (according to the developer) but kept releasing screens from that version until just 1-2 months ago (and that's where the talk of "downgrade" or if it was actually the PC version began).
 
Joined
Apr 18, 2011
Messages
3,263
Location
The land of rape and honey
Kordanor said:
But now the new ones are already limiting PC Gamers. ^^
Click to expand...
The OP reads it: TW3 would not have been without the console scene.
Graphics quality holding back PC players? Those who sum up video games to their graphics.
Lobbying in action: the high end PC players wont be enough to fund a project like that one. Far from it.
So they start to lobby, using maffia tactics to get a transfer of wealth from console players and low end PC players to themselves, so they can get the product the high end PC scene could not fund.
Nothing new here.
 
Joined
Mar 29, 2011
Messages
6,265
Not being a programmer or a developer myself, I must confess that I don't fully understand these issues.

From my (ignorant) perspective, it seems that it should be possible to develop the graphics to the max from the start (with monster pc:s in mind) and then remove/adjust whatever it takes to make the game work on consoles and low-end pc:s. While still retaining all the "ultra settings" for the best hardware available.

The same way that games for pc have always been developed with graphical options that can be adjusted up/down and turned on/off. Obviously, it doesn't work quite that way though…
 
Joined
Feb 11, 2014
Messages
411
Location
Sweden
TW3 is designed from top to bottom for console platforms. Consoles platforms that are used to be played in different conditions than PC platforms.
It goes beyond a simple downgrade of graphics, rendering and stuff.

CD projekt could afford porting a console version to PC, they could not afford porting a PC version to consoles, consoles players are the main customers, those who pay the bill.

You can sell a console game to PC players. You cant sell a PC game to console players.
 
Joined
Mar 29, 2011
Messages
6,265
All of that interview may very well be true, but it doesn't change their statements during the massive hyped up campaign.

Recently, they clearly stated the final game would look BETTER than early PR material, with total confidence, and that's all there is to it.

If they didn't actually mean that - then they should now admit it and say "sorry, we went overboard with that one" - but they're not doing that.

Now, I can understand their reasons and it all makes sense, but they deceived the audience - and they did it deliberately. Maybe they didn't think it through, and maybe they didn't consider the consequences of "little" white lies - but there it is.

I'm not one to carry a grudge, though, and I think the game seems utterly fantastic and quite beautiful so far - but I do despise public cowardice and denial of the obvious.

Their image should take a hit for this.
 
I have to say the issue is actually noticeable. Overall, the graphics look great, but even on 2560x1440 I can still see the lack of details from time to time. It looks a bit.. "flat"? It's hard to describe, but I didn't have the issue in TW2 (which I replayed recently).
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
7,586
Location
Bergen
ChienAboyeur said:
CD projekt could afford porting a console version to PC, they could not afford porting a PC version to consoles, consoles players are the main customers, those who pay the bill.

You can sell a console game to PC players. You cant sell a PC game to console players.
Click to expand...

I don't quite understand that argument. Surely, there have been a number of games that were originally developed with pc in mind and then ported to consoles.

Why would porting in that direction be more expensive? And why would it be easier to sell a game that was developed primarily for consoles to pc-players, rather than the other way around?

Is it that a version that attempted to max out the graphical potential would be staggeringly more expensive rather than a version with simpler graphics?
 
Joined
Feb 11, 2014
Messages
411
Location
Sweden
Feist said:
Not being a programmer or a developer myself, I must confess that I don't fully understand these issues.

From my (ignorant) perspective, it seems that it should be possible to develop the graphics to the max from the start (with monster pc:s in mind) and then remove/adjust whatever it takes to make the game work on consoles and low-end pc:s. While still retaining all the "ultra settings" for the best hardware available.

The same way that games for pc have always been developed with graphical options that can be adjusted up/down and turned on/off. Obviously, it doesn't work quite that way though…
Click to expand...

Development is not at all as fluid as you're suggesting.

You don't start out developing "max graphics" - you start out struggling to make things work on all three platforms, and then you try to find a sweet spot - where you're not wasting massive development time developing platform-exclusive assets to cater to the smallest audience.

Beyond that, they're saying they had to pick between two renderers, one of which was the one they used in PR material, which wasn't suited for huge open world streaming - so they picked the one that would actually work in the final game. That rings true to me, and that explains why they had to cut a lot of things back to make it run reasonably well.

They're now able to focus on PC, because they've got fully playable versions on all three platforms - and the wise thing to do is wait 3-6 months before playing it.
 
JDR13 said:
For some graphic tweaks? :)
Click to expand...

Balancing, bug-fixes, and a properly optimised PC experience.

It all depends on how much you care about such things, though.

Personally, I'm very keen on getting the full experience when the game is this good, but I don't know if I'm able to wait.

Still, I don't really have the time for it now, anyway.

To each his own, but I feel sorry for anyone who waits that long to experience this game.
Click to expand...

The experience gets worse after 3-6 months? :)
 
Well I agree about the balancing part at least. Like you, I'm playing on the Blood and Broken Bones difficulty, and it seems a little too easy considering it's the second-hardest difficulty level.

Some of the abilities need to be nerfed.

DArtagnan said:
The experience gets worse after 3-6 months? :)
Click to expand...

I'm sure you know what I meant. :)
 
Joined
Oct 21, 2006
Messages
39,327
Location
Florida, US
DArtagnan said:
Development is not at all as fluid as you're suggesting.

You don't start out developing "max graphics" - you start out struggling to make things work on all three platforms, and then you try to find a sweet spot - where you're not wasting massive development time developing platform-exclusive assets to cater to the smallest audience.

Beyond that, they're saying they had to pick between two renderers, one of which was the one they used in PR material, which wasn't suited for huge open world streaming - so they picked the one that would actually work in the final game. That rings true to me, and that explains why they had to cut a lot of things back to make it run reasonably well.

They're now able to focus on PC, because they've got fully playable versions on all three platforms - and the wise thing to do is wait 3-6 months before playing it.
Click to expand...

Thanks, that clears things up quite a bit. I suppose I was imagining that they'd start with creating a "Prestige Version", that would work on the best machine they had available, and once that was finished they'd work on "downgrading" that version to work on lesser and different hardware.

Having many games in my backlog, I'll take your advice and wait a while (august-october maybe) before buying TW3.
 
Joined
Feb 11, 2014
Messages
411
Location
Sweden
The main thing is the lighting model, the one they had in mind first simply, would in no way work on consoles... so they had to drop it, for a more flat lighting model, same thing happened to Unreal Engine 4... o well maybe next generation, we'll have real lighting!
 
Joined
Oct 25, 2006
Messages
6,292
""I cannot argue - if people see changes, we cannot argue," Adam Badowski says, "but there are complex technical reasons behind it."

"If they made their purchasing decision based on the 2013 materials, I'm deeply sorry for that, and we are discussing how we can make it up to them because that's not fair."

"we are not trying to hide anything." You can't hide what people can so easily compare and see, adds Badowski. "We don't feel good about it," Iwinski adds."

At least this puts an end to this "there is no downgrade" bullshit, and they seem to be taking seriously the idea of upgrading the PC version. But as vurt said, this doesn't explain why the gameplay preview videos right into this year were using a much superior lighting model.
 
Joined
May 12, 2015
Messages
93
kobold said:
""I cannot argue - if people see changes, we cannot argue," Adam Badowski says, "but there are complex technical reasons behind it."

"If they made their purchasing decision based on the 2013 materials, I'm deeply sorry for that, and we are discussing how we can make it up to them because that's not fair."

"we are not trying to hide anything." You can't hide what people can so easily compare and see, adds Badowski. "We don't feel good about it," Iwinski adds."

At least this puts an end to this "there is no downgrade" bullshit, and they seem to be taking seriously the idea of upgrading the PC version. But as vurt said, this doesn't explain why the gameplay preview videos right into this year were using a much superior lighting model.
Click to expand...

Probably because PR people and developers are not the same people.
 
Joined
Oct 25, 2006
Messages
6,292
ChienAboyeur said:
The OP reads it: TW3 would not have been without the console scene.
Graphics quality holding back PC players? Those who sum up video games to their graphics.
Lobbying in action: the high end PC players wont be enough to fund a project like that one. Far from it.
So they start to lobby, using maffia tactics to get a transfer of wealth from console players and low end PC players to themselves, so they can get the product the high end PC scene could not fund.
Nothing new here.
Click to expand...

Ummm normally it's the console manufacturers that do the lobbying, you seen a timed exclusive on PC in the last years ?
You do need market power to do lobbying, in fact I assume the console manufacturers do also lobby to keep PC versions not outshining the console versions by too much.

Only NVidia and AMD would have an interest in making PC games look as superior as they can be and the funds to influence devs to do so.

Which in a way Nvidia did for the witcher, let's be fair here downgrade or not the game struggles to keep 60 Ffps on ultra with everything on including hairworks on a Titanx X 12gb
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jul 26, 2013
Messages
226
Liar Liar Pants On Fire :)

The game looks amazing to me so I am not really bothered with that. However, for all intent and purposes CDPR now in the same league as EA, Ubisoft etc. This is a company who can't be arsed to let PC gamers change their key-binds via the UI. We all know consoles are the big thing and all that but a simple thing as UI mod to? FFS!
 
Joined
Oct 8, 2009
Messages
4,425
Location
UK
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom