Slashdot Mirror
Watch Dogs Graphics and Gameplay: PC Vs. Xbox One, With Surprising Results
MojoKid writes: Normally, the question of whether a game runs better on the PC or a console is a no-brainer, at least for PC users. Watch Dogs, however, with its problematic and taxing PC play, challenges that concept. And since the gap between consoles and PCs is typically smallest at the beginning of the console generation, HotHardware decided to take the Xbox One out for a head-to-head comparison against the PC with this long-awaited title. What was found may surprise you. Depending on just how much horsepower your PC has, the Xbox One (and possibly the PS4 though that wasn't compared) might be the better option. There's no question that the PC can look better, even before you factor in the mods that have been released to date, but unless you've spent $300 or more on a fairly recent GPU, you're not going to be able to run the game at sufficiently high detail to benefit from the enhanced image quality and resolution. If you have a Radeon HD 7950 / R9 280 or an NVIDIA card with greater than 4GB of RAM or a GeForce GTX 780 / 780 Ti, you can happily observe Watch Dogs make hash out of the Xbox One — but statistically, only a minority of gamers have this sort of high-end hardware.
This comparison should be viewed in light of the recent allegations that the PC version's graphics were deliberately handicapped.
......you won't be able to tolerate incompetent VRAM padding and crippling redundancy of a very 2007-looking game.
Because it hangs with any rig less than $400. Put a GTX 660 in this year so I could keep gaming in Win 7 after the forced upgrade from XP.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
but when i watched the videos it made me feel like i was 23 again! ...but only in the sense that the graphics looked like something 2003. i guess i haven't missed much if this is the most hyped game of this generation...wow.
Meanhile, the end result doesn't look THAT much better than the PS3, with its measly GeForce 7900 series.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
Why does this work so hard to sound organic, when it seems more like a boldfaced ad for xbox?
This is not new or unique. The PC is full of games that have ridiculously bad console-to-PC ports; With shitty controls, poor graphics, bad performance, and with absolutely no configurability.
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
Have an AMD 1090T with a Crossfired Radeon 6870s. Rig is old, but moderately beefy. Game ran fine on medium settings. May not have 4k textures and 16x anti-aliasing, but any hardcore gamer can deal with a little graphic fidelity loss for a playable game(r_picmip 5 anyone?)
In the old days, we all had windows desktops which could be modded and used to play games in addition to it's usual uses.
Now all the kids (and myself) only own Mac laptops, and don't want to buy a windows desktop just to game.
So the easy choice is to drop $200 no a game console to augment the Mac.
My God can beat up your God. Just kidding...don't take offense. I know there's no God.
You can't just compare the Xbox one with a PC of the same price on horsepower when the Xbox one is sold at a loss, making its money back on licences.
This game is ridiculously resource intensive on the PC. I usually do a big upgrade on my PC every 5 or 6 years. I just upgraded to a factory overclocked 780ti, z97 mobo, SSD to hold games, 24 gigs of ram (I also run a lot of VMs during the day for work), and a 4790K CPU this past week. With all that this game still struggles to stay at or above 60FPS, dipping to the 40's at times. It is a terrible port.
Titanfall, while not quite so bad, is another game that seems to demand more than it should from the PC. I really hope this isn't the start of a really bad trend of porting over crap, shoving it out the door, and telling the PC community to just throw more hardware at it. My last system lasted 5 years before it really needed an upgrade. I expect the same from this one but I'm starting to think I'm not going to be so lucky.
I browse on +1 so AC's need not respond, I won't see it.
The game is rubbish, so who cares which hardware it runs best on?!
You have to consider that Watch Dogs, like most Ubisoft games, is a shitty PC port that's badly optimized. It's deliberately designed to perform better on consoles since the PC version is crippled from the get go.
So this is where we're at now? Not just pay-to-play and inflammatory nonsense, but straight-up government-grade XBOX propaganda where we hear complete garbage like "statistically, only a minority of gamers have this sort of high-end hardware", when your bog-standard $200 R9 270x or Nvidia 760-whatever *smokes* the current console generation in terms of image quality. FPS, and resolution?
Not to mention the hilarity of this all centering around "Watch_Dogs", a game that is a textbook example of publisher bait-and-switch and making promises that are never delivered upon. Ubisoft is the Comcast of gaming.
This isn't even my opinion, this stuff is in wide discussion anywhere on the internet that cares about gaming in-general.
I'm just saying. Everything we know points to it being deliberately handicapped. The game actually runs better when you enable the settings that made it look gorgeous at E3. It runs better with better graphical fidelity.
The only excuse for disabling that is intentional malice or extreme incompetence. Ubisoft has a history of either of those in regards to PC gamers. If it were an isolated event, I'd go with incompetence, but this is no longer coincidence. I'm pretty sure it's malice due to it's repetition. l
that the game was cripple... would only people with high end hardware notice? Perhaps... but so what? The PC is not the console. Its not a uniform one size fits all platform. You release your game with variable settings that end users can tweak to get the best performance for THEIR machine.
Its how its done. The engine makers build in the hooks to change graphics settings dynamically on the fly with no trouble for a reason.
Just offer it and move on.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
and has been in my box for over a year
obvious troll story
maybe the got some straight up cash for it. it's not like there wasn't a scandal about such bullshittery already.
I mean, fuck, we've ALREADY had articles about shit dogs having a pretty shitty pc port that has features it has disabled on purpose to prevent the pc version from looking better.
why the fuck would they choose watchdogs for doing this comparison? did the at least use the tweaks to bring the pc visual quality BACK to what it was on pre-release demo videos of the game? since you can do that on the PC but you can't do that on the xbox and that makes the PC version look a lot better(to the point of it looking like the pr material distributed pre-release)..
of course the PC to run it like that costs more today than xbox one.
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
..but the allegations were true and since it's ubi we're talking about they're probably molesting kids to.
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
Going by what modders are pulling out of the game it does appear that it is true.
Om, nomnomnom...
Is there a guide on putting the settings to the e3 like settings?
I set everything to high, and my pc isn't killing itself, but the game doesn't look that great either...
I have a feeling that the author of the OP works for M$
Surprising results would be Ubisoft making a PC port that's stable and efficient right out of the gate and doesn't attack its customers with onerous DRM. The headline almost reads like an Onion article.
Still a high end (and more expensive) PC will always beat a console in terms of performance
Instead of performance, argue selection. There are more PC games not available for any given console than games for some console not on PC at all. Unless you're a fan of a particular first party universe (like the Smash Bros. universe) or a genre that historically gets ignored on PC (like platform fighting or JRPGs), you'll find more to choose from on PC.
Oh, and FRAND standards aren't completely proprietary, but they aren't free either.
http://www.moddb.com/games/watch-dogs/news/mod-enables-e3-graphics
http://forums.guru3d.com/showthread.php?t=390114
I don't own it yet, waiting for it to go on sale, but I read about this from one of IceHancers recent posts.
I can't vouch for them, but perhaps they will be a good place to start.
It looks interesting, but not compelling enough to pay in at full price.
Donald Trump, on a crusade to make Nixon look respectable
I can also buy much cheaper games without having to pay a quite expensive console tax
With consoles, you can often buy one copy for the household instead of a separate copy for each player. I'm not aware of any modern PC games doing StarCraft-style spawn installation.
With PC at a lan party everyone has their own screen so far better multi-player gaming.
I thought games for Xbox platforms supported System Link play. Besides, buying one console and sharing a screen is a lot cheaper than buying two to four gaming PCs if you have an SO or kids. What advantage does a separate view offer for things like fighting games and cooperative platformers?
Value for money largely depends on how many games in your sample set offer a same screen multiplayer option for those who want to use it. One copy of a $60 game can be cheaper than two copies of a $40 game.
The cited review is one of the worst I've ever seen - judgement is _solely_ done using screenshots and some crappy video not even showing the same scene - no fraps (not necessarily the best thing, but pretending to be objective doesn't hurt either), nothing... And then the claim: For playing Watch Dogs on PC you have to spend so much more money than for a console, since, you know, you NEED this >300$ GPU, because the game needs soo much VRAM - which is something you can even get for 100$ (gt740 with 4gb...) with console-like computational capability. But hey, still the author sees no need for lowering res to console levels (just around half the pixels), to make a fair comparison, or to specify which graphics cards he used (I think using my 1GB HD6850 would just produce this results - but it is basically 3 years old...)!
Considering that, I don't hope that Microsoft is financing such kind of Internet Troll...
I bought my GPU for 250 dollars 4 years ago and it still runs all games on high settings.
It's just another of those shitty articles to try to attract new audiences (and at the same time alienate old). This slashdot article is representative of why I no longer visit this site more than, lets say, 2 times per month now. Shame.
If you bought a PC game there's no reason you can't all play on the same PC. Attach the PC gaming rig to the TV in the living room, add USB controllers, and you have a shared system. That's a false dichotomy you've made there.
There's no practical limit on the number of USB controllers you can attach to one PC, and they do support split screen games. So they can do all that already, plus more.
Just ordered a PS4 with The Last of Us Remastered. Looking foreward to it. I also want to play whatchdogs then, but I heard so much negativ opinions about it. Also that the graphics just on PC in super resolution is good, and not so much on the PS4. What do you guys think about the gameplay?
"...but unless you've spent $300 or more on a fairly recent GPU, you're not going to be able to run the game at sufficiently high detail to benefit from the enhanced image quality and resolution."
What gamer junkie doesn't have a kick ass video card? $300 for a GPU is nothing when you can drop $6-700 USD on the latest and greatest offering.
I'm just saying. Everything we know points to it being deliberately handicapped. The game actually runs better when you enable the settings that made it look gorgeous at E3. It runs better with better graphical fidelity.
The only excuse for disabling that is intentional malice or extreme incompetence. Ubisoft has a history of either of those in regards to PC gamers. If it were an isolated event, I'd go with incompetence, but this is no longer coincidence. I'm pretty sure it's malice due to it's repetition. l
It's PC so they get to use the 'ensuring optimum quality for all users' line as cover for the bullshots.
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
Most PC gamers I know spend about as much on a GPU upgrade around new console launches (give or take 2 years) than you would spend on a console.
CPU and RAM haven't had much in terms of upgrade options in ... 5-6 years? (anyone who spent well back then is likely still gaming on such a system quite fine).
The exception is PCI express standards which may be limiting newer GPUs system bandwidth, but lets be frank - all AAA games shipping to date don't have the quality of textures required to saturate even PCI Express 1, so it's a moot point short of uncompressed HD-res texture mods.
Actually steam supports family sharing now. http://store.steampowered.com/sharing/
I spent more on my Nvidia 780 than my buddy's xbone cost. Of course it bloody well better look better on PC than on some peasant console...
Family sharing isn't a great solution. A library can only be accessed once, so you if are playing a game on your main PC someone else spouse/kid can't be on another playing a game out of the same library. The only real solution is for non-online games which is to go into Steam offline mode and the games can be accessed on two different machines.
Sony's system on the PS4 is slightly better. On machine is defined as the account's "home" system. Any content is then accessible from any other account logged into that console. You can then sign into another console with the account and access all of the content. Locking online multiplayer behind a pay service sucks, but the ability to play online is also shared with on the "home" system. So if you bought games digitally on one main account, you can easily play the same copy online with another person.
I'm just saying. Everything we know points to it being deliberately handicapped. The game actually runs better when you enable the settings that made it look gorgeous at E3. It runs better with better graphical fidelity.
... if you never leave a small area, so that everything is full cached. Otherwise, you get significant stuttering. Look at any of the threads on the "mod" that enabled the settings - even as people praise it, they acknowledge that frame rates drop to 30 fps maximum with bursts of less than that vs. 60 fps without the "mod".
Going by what modders are pulling out of the game it does appear that it is true.
Those modders are praising the wonderful graphics they get with the enabled settings, while admitting that they get stuttering and frame rates below 30 fps. Doesn't sound like Ubisoft "handicapped" the graphics to me, so much as fixed the performance issues.
Sorry but the console won't get any better over the years and PC hardware will. So even a year from now, everyone will be playing Watch Dogs at a higher quality.
" a pc couldnt make halo look as delicious"
What? The XBox used a modified GeForce 3.
Just after Halo was released in November 2001, the GeForce 4 came out.
The GeForce 4Ti series ran rings around the Xbox's modified GeForce 3.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
Going by what modders are pulling out of the game it does appear that it is true.
Those modders are praising the wonderful graphics they get with the enabled settings, while admitting that they get stuttering and frame rates below 30 fps. Doesn't sound like Ubisoft "handicapped" the graphics to me, so much as fixed the performance issues.
I've run the game with and without the mods and if anything it improved stuttering and barely impacted my frame rates. Other gamers are reporting the same experience.
I browse on +1 so AC's need not respond, I won't see it.
This whole article is misleading and pointless, as it has been discovered (and confirmed by UbiSoft themselves) that UbiSoft INTENTIONALLY crippled the graphics of PC versions (only) of WatchDogs.
http://www.maximumpc.com/ubiso...
Assuming the asshat game developer didn't intentionally cripple it, top end PC graphics will always be capable of more/better performance than consoles. Its just common sense, not least because a top-end GPU card alone costs significantly more than an entire console.
Actually, even Origins looks pretty decent on a modern rig. One of the nice things about PC games is sometimes they get *better* over time. I've just started playing it a few months ago and considering the age it looks quite nice with all settings turned up to full. When I look at the trailers, they actually look somewhat crappy compared to my current gameplay (and youtube walkthroughs made on older hardware look particularly dated).
I wonder how many people have realized that the E3 2012 was a showcase and as such, they had to show the game in a short amount of time.
So, who would be retarded enough to show some shitty grey weather and some scenes where nothing happened to present the game, on a low end PC?
Oddly enough, they chose to pack the presentation with the maximum of things their engine was doing right, on a high end PC.
It does not mean it was a lie; it was definitely not.
Everything from the E3 demo, aside the big fuel station explosion is in the final game, without "mod".
- The depth of field is present, but cleverly when not bothering the view and gameplay, that is when you aim, and in cutscenes.
- The leaves falling from the tree, the cans that are blown just in front of Pierce, the dust cloud, and the smoke coming out of the manholes are all there.
But the street are not (always...) a garbage dump so they are scarce.
And there are no manhole every 5 meters in the same street, because err... that just doesn't make sense.
- The gorgeous classical sunset lightning can be found at times, according to the weather.
Except that you know, the sun does not set to the north, as in the E3 demo.
- The raindrop (and the "bullet time") are there, same effects.
Regarding the rain density from what I do get on my PC, I would really fear that Aiden might have trouble breathing if anymore rain drops.
The level design of the E3 area was obviously changed, not for the better if you want to compare the E3 and the final game side by side,
but it would be very dumb to consider the comparison meaningful, given you cannot event set the sun to the north and the time and weather is different (the 'famous' youtube video of E3 vs game pseudo remake is just food for nonconstructive criticism - contrary to another video thrown around from a totally different context comparing what the old GTA IV engine does better [which is irrelevant to the E3]).
What the fabled mod does is putting more eye-pleasing light in most conditions, aside activating some disabled settings (from which some where not even enabled for the E3).
So now even when you have a shitty weather, well it looks kinda nice. Wonderful; talk about taking your blue pill.
Other have already said that the always-on depth of field is just stupid in-game eye candy that will hamper the gameplay (you just cannot see who's shooting from the other side of the road).
And regarding the enabling of the car headlight projecting shadow, I would like to be shown where in the E3 demo you see any headlight projecting shadows.
ALL the screenshots (or the videos) I have seen showcasing the mod, are just totally on par (except for the DoF obviously) with what I can screenshot in my game given in similar conditions.
To me there is just a lot of noise (strengthened by some usual low quality (or lack of) analysis from several "blog/tech site" such as TT - which does have a great BIOS forum nonetheless), sprouting pseudo proof based on the tendency that consoles are dragging down the PC development, and developers are not pushing hard enough etc. etc.
[though oddly, the positive side of this, being able to keep your PC much longer as you where before the console stole the market, would be another case of whining if the tendency reversed]
Obviously, the general idea is right, but as despicable Ubisoft was in its DRM since AC2, and how terrible Uplay is, I would trust the fact that their is no conspiracy, because well, it's just sound plain dumb: you had a video showcasing the NVIDIA partnership with looked quite on par with the E3. And why would the console paradigm change if the game looked (and it can look, without any "mod") better on PC (hence deciding to castrate the PC version).
The console paradigm being that it is cheaper and easier to use and play on (regardless of this being true or not). The pseudo "next generation" only shifts the console gamer base which still adhere to the this same paradigm.
Cherry on the top is the illogical
Macs are PCs.
True in the sense that Macs are general-purpose computing devices where the person who owns it controls what computing it does. True in the sense that games work once you buy, install, and reboot into a copy of Windows. But false in the sense that they are compatible out of the box with "PC games" that have deliberate anti-Wine measures.
I've got a couple that are definitely targeted at a gamepad rather than a keyboard/mouse. Injustice: Gods Among Us comes to mind. My solution was just to steal some controllers from the XBox and use them on the PC.
My buddy has the same game on console. The big difference:
I paid under $30 on a Steam sale, and got the "extended edition" or whatever it's called with all the addons. He paid around the same, but every time he starts it up his Playstations tells him about all the fun addons he *could* have is he's just willing to shell out another $15-30 for the expansions.
Also, it actually looks a bit better on the PC with the settings turned up.
Normally a Linux distribution will not run "Games for Windows" without an emulator which in my case I could not be bothered to do
Wine is not an emulator; it is a PE executable loader and an independent reimplementation of the Win32 API. This means Wine is a "Windows emulator" to the extent that Fedora is a "UNIX emulator". Or do games using the "Games for Windows Live" library have particular problems with third-party Win32 reimplementations the way games using PunkBuster do? Or to which "emulator" were you referring?
I can even run EMU games such as NES, SNES, Megadrive etc.
With the Retrode discontinued, what do you use to make ROM images of your NES, Super NES, and Mega Drive cartridges for use with your emulators?
IMHO the gamer has to make the choice of which gaming system they prefer.
And this choice has to be made on the basis of available games. A lot of especially indie games are PC-first or PC-only.
you get a lot of console to PC ports but hardly a sniff in the other direction.
You can port up but you can't port down.
Of course you can port down if the game is designed for such. An indie studio's debut game is often released as a PC exclusive, even if it's controller-friendly, because console makers prefer experienced companies. Once sales pick up, a game might gain interest from a licensed publisher, and then the console port is based on the game's controller support.
Was there a serious problem with the console port of Spelunky or Cave Story or La-Mulana?
If you bought a PC game there's no reason you can't all play on the same PC.
One problem is that a lot of major-studio games designed around multiple controllers are released on one or more consoles and never make it to the PC until emulators catch up a decade or more later. This is more common in some genres than others. And a lot of games that do make it to PC have their split-screen mode cut out. The best guess I've seen as to the reason relates to what you suggest next:
Attach the PC gaming rig to the TV in the living room, add USB controllers
I'm under the impression that the number of end users are willing to do this is commercially insignificant compared to online PC gamers. Please see comments like those I linked here. It's a vicious cycle: people don't buy a gaming HTPC because of too few games supporting couch co-op, and major publishers don't fund the development of PC games supporting couch co-op because of too few deployed gaming HTPCs. Or how has the tradition of users being unwilling to set up a PC in the living room changed over the past few years?
There's no practical limit on the number of USB controllers you can attach to one PC
USB game controllers are either HID joysticks or XInput controllers. Unlike XInput controllers, HID joysticks have an inconsistent button layout across brands. Plugging in a console controller and having its buttons already configured is more convenient for users than having to rebind buttons every time you plug in or plug out a HID joystick.
and they do support split screen games
That's true so long as the publisher bothers to allocate money toward a split-screen mode. But I don't see how a PC can support a same-screen multiplayer game that isn't ported to PC (and isn't old enough to be emulated well), or a game whose PC version has had split-screen cut out. Or have those too become less common over the past few years?
The word "Jews" is roughly as offensive as "Muslims" or "Christians" or "black people", that is, not offensive by itself. Example: "A few of my co-workers are Jews, and they've introduced me to interesting cuisine." It becomes offensive once you start blaming Jews, Christians, black people, or any other ethnic or religious group for some ill of society without clear and convincing evidence behind your claims. Some people might reply to your posts to try to refute what arguments you do present, as sincere extremism is hard to distinguish from satire.
"Niggers", on the other hand, specifically invokes attitudes dating from the era of American slavery. Like "kikes", the word already has its mind made up. People don't reply because they know from your use of "niggers" that you're trolling. So unless you're referring to a newsgroup for discussing Number, Integration, Group, Graph, Enumeration, Ring and Set theory, stay the hell away from the word "niggers".
So anyway, what are female "watch dogs" called? Is "watch bitches" too offensive?
"Get" stuttering? The mod actually managed to REMOVE stuttering from the original game.
45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
Actually - not so much "modders" as "tweakers". Back in the day, it was editing an .ini file, and what they do is nothing else. They don't add external shaders, they don't add or replace any content, they just enable content that is there, in game, disabled by settings. The only reason this is done through mods and not plain config file edit is that the config file is buried within proprietary archive of the game, and can be modified only through a mod.
45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
watch dogs sucks.
I'm just saying. Everything we know points to it being deliberately handicapped. The game actually runs better when you enable the settings that made it look gorgeous at E3. It runs better with better graphical fidelity.
The only excuse for disabling that is intentional malice or extreme incompetence. Ubisoft has a history of either of those in regards to PC gamers. If it were an isolated event, I'd go with incompetence, but this is no longer coincidence. I'm pretty sure it's malice due to it's repetition. l
It's PC so they get to use the 'ensuring optimum quality for all users' line as cover for the bullshots.
This is done by allowing the PC to choose their graphics setting, you know low, medium, high, ultra. Every other PC game out there allows this and is what covers the companies ass. That and the minimum PC requirements.
But if I have a rig that is past the recommended requirements and the game is still shit well then EA and Comcrap might just have some competition this year for "Worst Company Ever"
SOMETHING TO DEFINITELY be AVOIDED -> http://developers.slashdot.org...
APK
P.S.=> No questions asked - you've shown myself, and probably others here as well, you have NO clue, and shoot your mouth off on things you have no idea of the capabilities they have either... apk
While Ubisoft really does suck in many regards, at least they acknowledged one factor with the grahics: If you enable the "E3 version" of it, it becomes a worse game gameplay-wise. That DoF is horrendous for aiming at distant things.
Thus the mod to adjust it. And how hard is DoF to fix? Honestly?
It's a very close call between incompetence and malice. It's so incompetent, I'm going to call it malice based on the precedent of how they treat the PC.
Look up Total Buscuit's video on 'was watchdogs crippled on PC', and tell me if the results between PC and xbone are surprising. They deliberately disabled the more advanced features, aka the ones we saw in the e3 video, on the PC despite the fact pc has little issue running them. Just to make so-called be then consoles look competitive.
So you're saying that modifying game files and building a custom game patch in order to enable the settings isn't modding. But rather tweaking. Well if that's the case then everyone should be able to do it with no problem at all right? Oh they can't? Well what's the reason behind that, oh right it's because this is beyond the technical level of most people. See this is the difference between a basic "tweak" where files are easily accessible and modding where you're "modifying" files in order to change what's accessible/enabled/available.
If it was purely tweaking, this would be more akin to editing .ini files in say oblivion/skyrim/etc, it's not that however.
Om, nomnomnom...
The mod does not "adjust it" - it brings out the bad DoF. Gameplay-wise, it's better without the mod, because then, the DoF is only in cutscenes where it doesn't interfere with gameplay.
... You realize the mod has changed the DoF. I don't know what you define "adjusting" as, but that's what I define it as.
Let's imagine a mod for your_newest_game: giving it anisotropic antialiasing x4.
In your game, you can enter "Options", click "Graphics", "Advanced", and drag the anisotropic filtering slider to "x4". Then click "Apply" and it's saved in a config file in the game directory.
Meanwhile, the mod finds the configh file and changes the line that reads "GFX_Anisotropic_Filtering=0" to 4.
Would you agree that's rather silly, considering this is within skill of about every user?
Well, now remove the option from game menu. Pack the game files with an obscure compression program.
It took some smart modder to figure out the compression program and be able to create an automated tool that applies modifications inside the archive - without need to repack the multi-gigabyte archive. He released the tool, and another one that allows you to browse the game files, as if they were unpacked.
Now someone else finds the config file, and uses the program to change "GFX_Anisotropic_Filtering=0" to 4 within the archive. Anyone with access to the tools can do this. The actual modification of the game is completely trivial. It's just that even most trivial tweak to the game must be packaged in the same, complex tool as a mod.
45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2