While we wait for more details, perhaps an interesting thing is what IGN did, compared DA3 on PC and two consoles' versions.
Guess which ring rules them all.
When not defining pc gaming in order to achieve the conclusion that PC gaming(PC gaming, sales of games on PC) is not dead because it cant die as there always will be games sold on PC (that 's asking a question that cant be answered by a negative so useless question) but when sticking to PC gaming for what it (used to) means, this kind of comparison appears hollow.
Commonly, console players and PC players are not expected to play under the same conditions.
Commonly, PC players are expected to play sitting at their desk, on a 24'' something monitor, with a distance from their eyes to the monitor under the meter (mostly around 60~70 cm)
Consoles players are expected to play sitting in their couch, on a bigger screen, with a distance from their eyes to the monitor over the 1m50.
Different conditions, different requirements on the images.
Console screens usually show aliasing. As they can. Sharpness is not that a big issue when the image is conceived to be watched from a certain distance. It turns out an issue when the player sticks their face to the screen (closer to common pc usage, not console usage)
Sharpness in screens is a demand from PC usage conditions, not console usage conditions.
Another point (among others): when PC gaming is kept to what it means, that is games developped, designed, conceived to take advantages of PC potentialities, the issue of composition of images appear.
The composition of a painting obeys a few rules when it comes to occupation of space and they do not scale. Images on a bigger space are not composed the same way as on a smaller space, it does not scale 1:1. Well composed images when magnified or reduced usually lose their balance in composition. It follows that the eye sight is usually guided elsewhere.
It was a common issue some decades ago when movies conceived to be watched on a silver screen were released on the home video market. Usually, movie makers tried to draw the watcher into the screen and they have to work their angles to achieve their effects.
When moved to a smaller screen, suddenly, the effects went flat as the geometry of the image changed and watchers no longer watched the point the movie maker wanted them (and succeeded in theaters) to, they looked elsewhere. Sometimes, on defaults in the image. Hence blunders appearing etc
Today, it is a factored in issue and images are reworked to smoothen the translation from one format to another. It still remains though.
It turns relevant for video gaming when games try to achieve an immersion effect: drawing people into a screen is not the same when people watch a large screen from 2 meters than when they watch a smaller screen from less than one meter.
Now who is priviledged in this regard? Who get the design that suit the common circumstances of use and who buy a repeddled product not thought to meet their use conditions, very similar to third world economical satisfactions?
Who is in the first world gaming and who is the third world gaming?
