Watch Dogs Graphics and Gameplay: PC Vs. Xbox One, With Surprising Results

Unless you've spent $300 on a GPU... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-08 15:19 · Score: 3, Insightful

......you won't be able to tolerate incompetent VRAM padding and crippling redundancy of a very 2007-looking game.

Re:Unless you've spent $300 on a GPU... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-08 15:30 · Score: 4, Interesting

Forget 2007. The game is not even much of a topic. Bland enough to not make as much of an impact as it was advertised to do. Watch_Dogs and Titanfall are both disappointments. Happy I didn't get caught up in the hype for them. Need to be wary of Dragon Age next.
Re:Unless you've spent $300 on a GPU... by donaldm · 2014-07-08 15:55 · Score: 1

Flame wars here we come. :)

Actually the best way to get console fanboys (yes there are girls as well), who are normally at each others throats to actually agree together is when PC fanboys criticize consoles. Still a high end (and more expensive) PC will always beat a console in terms of performance, however most PC's are not high end (as per the article) so the so called elitist criticism is rather childish.

--
There ain't no such thing as proprietary standards only proprietary formats. Standards are by definition open.
Re:Unless you've spent $300 on a GPU... by Darinbob · 2014-07-08 16:36 · Score: 2, Informative

Unless you've spend $300 on an xbox... (or whatever they cost).
Basically PC games makes sense because most people already have a PC (or Mac). Currently, except for some high end recently released shooters (like watchdogs) in a competitive environment, you don't need a high end GPU and you can get by with a reasonably cheap one less than the cost of a console, or even play on a laptop.
Ten years ago with a mid-range system you would tweak and poke the settings trying to get the best view you could get without causing the game to stutter and lag, but today most games just work great out of the box. Ie, when Oblivion was new people would struggle to get things to look great while still being playable; today though you get Skyrim and accept the defaults.
So buying a console really doesn't save any money, unless you're getting it because you have kids or you want to keep the spouse of your computer. Plus you can even attach a game controller to the PC if you're the sort that prefers that to a mouse and keyboard.
Re:Unless you've spent $300 on a GPU... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-08 17:47 · Score: 1

Yeah. Lets blame reddit and the PC Master Race meme after a decade of "PC GAMING IS DEAD!"-headlines, innumerable DRM efforts and the entire industry screaming "PIRACY! THEREFORE NO MORE PC GAMES!"
This is the shithole the video game industry dug itself. They can dig themselves out. Now get off my lawn.
Re:Unless you've spent $300 on a GPU... by mjwx · 2014-07-08 20:18 · Score: 1

The ultimate argument for the PC gaming master race is that 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.

--
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
Re:Unless you've spent $300 on a GPU... by Wootery · 2014-07-08 23:19 · Score: 1

You can port up but you can't port down.
Well, it's not impossible. I can name several games which have been ported from PC to less-powerful consoles.
Re:Unless you've spent $300 on a GPU... by donaldm · 2014-07-09 00:35 · Score: 2

Basically PC games makes sense because most people already have a PC (or Mac).

In what way does PC gaming make more sense? I have a gaming PC that actually runs Linux (ie. Fedora) as my primary and only OS although I do have virtual machines which I hardly every run. Normally a Linux distribution will not run "Games for Windows" without an emulator which in my case I could not be bothered to do, however if the game is web based I normally can run it. I can even run EMU games such as NES, SNES, Megadrive etc. Having said that I actually prefer console games over PC games.
IMHO the gamer has to make the choice of which gaming system they prefer. If you like PC gaming then fine, if you prefer consoles then that is fine also and if you like both then that is fine as well.

--
There ain't no such thing as proprietary standards only proprietary formats. Standards are by definition open.
Re:Unless you've spent $300 on a GPU... by Stuarticus · 2014-07-09 01:21 · Score: 1

Wasn't Dragon Age 2 enough to make you wary?

--
If you think someone isn't free to have a different definition of "freedom" you may be a tyrant.
Re: Unless you've spent $300 on a GPU... by gTsiros · 2014-07-09 01:21 · Score: 1

you do realize /r/pcmasterrace is tongue-in-cheek at best? Something like /r/circlejerk

--
Looking for people to chat about multicopters, coding, music. skype: gtsiros
Re:Unless you've spent $300 on a GPU... by Stuarticus · 2014-07-09 01:22 · Score: 1

Can you name any that weren't utter disasters though?

--
If you think someone isn't free to have a different definition of "freedom" you may be a tyrant.
Re:Unless you've spent $300 on a GPU... by L4t3r4lu5 · 2014-07-09 01:25 · Score: 4, Insightful

Really? Games published by Ubi (Watch Dogs) and EA (Titanfall) didn't live up to their hype?

I am Jack's total lack of surprise.

--
Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
Re:Unless you've spent $300 on a GPU... by Stormwatch · 2014-07-09 01:46 · Score: 1

Watch Dogs is just a shitty port. But from what I heard, the rather modest (sub-$150) GTX 650Ti will handle Titanfall better than the Xbox One.

--
Circumcision is child abuse.
Re:Unless you've spent $300 on a GPU... by Stormwatch · 2014-07-09 01:56 · Score: 1

Quake 3 looked really good on the Dreamcast.

--
Circumcision is child abuse.
Re:Unless you've spent $300 on a GPU... by Agares · 2014-07-09 02:14 · Score: 1

This may be a little off topic, but most people I know, who aren't PC gamers, usually spend around 500 on a computer. So with this in mind why not spend the extra you would on a console to have a decent gaming rig? Not only that, but you can get games dirt cheap on PC from steam if you want to wait on the sales. So in the end it might actually be cheaper to game on a PC in the long run even though the initial cost is higher. Which would let you get better hardware if you happen to be one of those people who must have everything on max settings. Just a thought.
Re:Unless you've spent $300 on a GPU... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-09 02:20 · Score: 1

No, it looked like blurry, low resolution ass, not to mention the crap controls. On the other hand Quake 3 still looks good to this day on PC and is still the benchmark for all multiplayer FPS games..
Re:Unless you've spent $300 on a GPU... by Rotag_FU · 2014-07-09 02:56 · Score: 1

What about Titanfall was a specific disappointment?
I've owned it since day one and thoroughly enjoyed it. In many ways it was a breath of fresh air that shook up a lot of the cruft of modern progression based multiplayer shooters. I will acknowledge that there were a couple of rough edges at launch (mostly commonly expected but inexplicably missing minor features) however just about all of those have been resolved in updates. Still, I had more fun playing it than I have a game of this genre since probably the original Modern Warfare.
I haven't played Watch_Dogs yet so I cannot comment on it.
Re:Unless you've spent $300 on a GPU... by Stormwatch · 2014-07-09 05:14 · Score: 1

What was the typical resolution for playing games at the time? The Dreamcast did 640x480, and it looked fine with a VGA box or an S-Video cable.

--
Circumcision is child abuse.
Re:Unless you've spent $300 on a GPU... by kick6 · 2014-07-09 08:05 · Score: 1

I have a gaming PC that actually runs Linux (ie. Fedora) as my primary and only OS
Not many people are stupid enough to explicitly choose an unsupported OS to use on their dedicated gaming box. You are the absolute tale end of the bell curve, and I question your sanity for making this choice. At the very least, you're a sadist.
Re:Unless you've spent $300 on a GPU... by CronoCloud · 2014-07-09 08:08 · Score: 1

Xbone and PS4 are like $500 each. I can get a PC that will blow them both away for that price.
A PS4 costs $399. You can get an 8-core PC with 8GB of RAM for that price?
Re:Unless you've spent $300 on a GPU... by CronoCloud · 2014-07-09 08:16 · Score: 1

Not only that, but you can get games dirt cheap on PC from steam if you want to wait on the sales.

PC gamers, especially Steam fans don't seem to be aware that there are sales on PSN and Xbox marketplace
https://store.sonyentertainmen...
Re:Unless you've spent $300 on a GPU... by CronoCloud · 2014-07-09 08:27 · Score: 1

Diablo, Diablo 3.
Darkstone
C&C, Red Alert, RA Retaliation, Dune 2000
Deus Ex
Half Life, Portal
Sim City (various versions)
Civ II
Wing Commander (various versions)
DOOM
Might & Magic-foo, Wizardy-foo, Ultima-foo
Quake (various versions)
Sacred 2
IL-2 Sturmovik, Wings of Steel, War Thunder
Minecraft
Terraria
Don't Starve
You don't know jack.
X-com (the original)
Panzer General
Re:Unless you've spent $300 on a GPU... by Stormwatch · 2014-07-09 09:29 · Score: 1

How can that be "typical", when most monitors at the time did up to 1024x768?

--
Circumcision is child abuse.
Re:Unless you've spent $300 on a GPU... by CronoCloud · 2014-07-09 09:44 · Score: 1

All of which had much worse graphics and horrible, unplayable controls compared to the PC versions, among other problems. Disasters.
Really? All of them? Which ones have you played?
M&M 1 on the NES has enhanced graphics and sound over the Apple 2 and C64 versions.
The PS2 ports of Deus EX and Half-life, are also enhanced over the originals and support mouse and keyboard as well.
Sacred 2's developers said themselves that the game plays better and is more fun with a gamepad.
Diablo 1 on the PSone has graphical enhancements over the PC version. Diablo 3's developers said that the game worked well and was more fun with the gamepad.
War Thunder on the PS4 supports the exact same control options the PC version does and also supports using the PS4 camera for head tracking just like TrackIR.
Re:Unless you've spent $300 on a GPU... by CronoCloud · 2014-07-09 10:03 · Score: 1

I can get a PC that is more powerful with the same amount of RAM for that price.

it won't have 8GB of GDDR5 RAM will it.

The CPU in the PS4 is the performance equivalent of a low end PC processor, such as a dual core Pentium.
BS. That's 8 1.6 GHz cores in the PS4.

The GPU, being integrated, is also pretty low end.
You're thinking like a Filthy PC Gamer bourgeoisie philistine. Integrated doesn't mean the same thing in console land. The PS4's GPU is is a customized version of AMD's 7870 GPU, with 2 CUs disabled.
That's not a traditional "integrated" GPU like you're implying.
It is most certainly better than the GT640 I've got in this Fedora machine.
Let me find a machine to compare:
http://www.amazon.com/Dell-i36...
Lets see that costs $379, has a dual core CPU, 4GB of RAM and intel HD graphics. Can that thing even run Watch Dogs?
No.
http://www.geforce.com/games-a...
Re:Unless you've spent $300 on a GPU... by Stormwatch · 2014-07-09 10:19 · Score: 1

If you were rich. The typical monitors back then were still 15-inch non-flat CRTs.

--
Circumcision is child abuse.
Re: Unless you've spent $300 on a GPU... by sd4f · 2014-07-09 11:25 · Score: 1

It isn't like circlejerk, it is a circlejerk. My point about them being kids is that there's a lot of new gamers who have jumped into PC gaming. Good for them, but they seem oblivious to what it once was, many years ago, before steam. As a result, they treat valve as if it can do no wrong, while I'm somewhat more sentimental, and have a feeling that valve has done damage to PC gaming in many different ways.
For one, it is DRM, and one with rather strict buyer lock in. Now that's understandable for digital distribution, but rather unfair that they package the DRM in such a way to ensure that even other online distributors end up selling games which have to run through steam. This is a valve tax, it's absolutely no different to PC manufacturers selling computers without windows, yet still paying MS a fee. I also think that it's awful that they're now opening the flood gates and allowing a lot of really misleading games on steam. There's broken, buggy and incomplete games which have been abandoned, being sold on steam, and they're not necessarily "early access".
Now relating this to PCMR, it's hard to relay this to people who jump in and think 'well this is the way it is, it's how it has always been', but they don't understand, it hasn't always been like this. I think we've seen a race to the bottom with steam, but it's impossible to make that point when you have a massive circlejerk supporting valve and steam; all because they can buy cheap games they never play.
I can't wait for GoG Galaxy! Hopefully it will give me some choice.
Re:Unless you've spent $300 on a GPU... by Stormwatch · 2014-07-09 11:55 · Score: 1

Then your company was rich. Not the regular user's typical monitor.

--
Circumcision is child abuse.
Re:Unless you've spent $300 on a GPU... by CronoCloud · 2014-07-09 13:04 · Score: 1

but it will have 8GB of DDR3 RAM and *dedicated* GDDR5 VRAM.

I'm sorry but I linked to machine that is in the same price range of the PS4, and it doesn't have either of those. Having main memory be high speed GDDR5 is an advantage you know.

More cores != faster. A dual core Pentium G series is just as powerful as an eight core Jaguar CPU and 1.6GHz is a joke for such an anemic CPU.
Oh really? Then what about those PC gamer master race guys like you who were claiming that having more cores was more important than clock speed when talking about the PS3's CPU. You guys can't have it both ways.

The integrated GPU in the PS4 is *exactly* the same as the ones used in AMD's PC CPUs.

Why yes, the standalone 7870....which still costs about $150 right?

A low-end GPU like the Geforce 750 will provide the same performance and only costs $100.
More like $120, but that's a very recent GPU, just came out didn't it. The 7870 still has more GFLOPS than it... I checked.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R...
And that $379 machine doesn't come with one of those does it?

And you're thinking like a clueless console moron who knows nothing about PCs or technology.

Really. You're going to do that know nothing console peasant thing on someone who has been running LInux for 12 years? One of the reasons I play games on consoles is so I don't have to use Windows.
Get back to me if you can get an octo-core machine with 8GB of RAM and a 7870 or GT750 for $399. But you can't.
Re:Unless you've spent $300 on a GPU... by CronoCloud · 2014-07-09 14:00 · Score: 1

The Apple version looked much better than the NES version. The PC-88 & PC-98 version absolutely demolish the NES version.
Citation needed...oh wait, I have a citation for you that proves you wrong:
http://www.hardcoregaming101.n...

Deus Ex on PS2 had crap textures, low quality soundtrack and tiny levels
They're not tiny, they're split in pieces, the port house didn't know the trick of streaming levels. But take a look at the screenshots...
http://steamcommunity.com/shar...
and the comments at the end about the nice soundtrack and how it looks a touch nicer than the PC version. And this is people on Steam saying this, one of the more anti-console forums on the net.

Half-Life on PS2 came out three years after the PC original and still looked worse than the PC version with Blue Shift,
Do you know why I'm laughing. The graphical upgrade Blue Shift brought to the PC version was provided by the never released Dreamcast version. the High Definition pack are the textures the Dreamcast version used. The PS2 version has enhancements beyond that:
http://half-life.wikia.com/wik...

The PlayStation 2 remake of Half-Life saw even further improved models to the game, also created by Gearbox. This included full facial animation and individually-animated fingers.[4] As such, they're considered a continuation of the High Definition Pack. The PlayStation 2 port took advantage of a "Level of Detail" system, allowing these very detailed models up close without sacrificing performance. Health and H.E.V. Chargers have been converted to 3D and have special animations during use. These extra HD features were never officially released for the PC version of the game.

Both had crap controls on console, rendering them unplayable.
Really, you have copies? Played them? Citation needed, because I have both within 10 feet of me and know how they support effective dual shock controls, and also support keyboard and/or mouse. I personally recommend a hybrid control scheme, using the left half of a dual shock for movement...but mouse for aiming.

Sacred 2 looked like shit on PC, but far worse on console.
What? A game that runs at true 1080p with no upscaling tricks? Even digital foundry, notoriously partisan for the PC, said that.

It was also a very mouse heavy game which again renders it virtually unplayable on a gamepad.
That's not what Sacred 2's developers say. That's not even what people on the PC version say either. Some of them actually wanted gamepad support as well.

Diablo I on PSX came out two years after the PC version and runs at such a low resolution that you can't tell what it happening on screen.
Troll. It's one of the PSone games that runs at 240p. Yes it's low but you can easily make everything out. You can easily find video or screenshots.

Diablo III on console looks like shit compared to the PC version.
That's not what notoriously PC partisan Digital Foundry said:
http://www.eurogamer.net/artic...

On the technical scale, both the PS3 and 360 are running at the equivalent to the PC version's high settings for texture assets, physics and effects - with smoothed dynamic shadows almost a match for PC's highest preset. Quibbles with internal resolution and field of view aside, this is a pristinely presented take on a year-old game that targets 60fps on both platforms, and largely succeeds in nailing exactly
Re:Unless you've spent $300 on a GPU... by NoZart · 2014-07-09 17:38 · Score: 1

Diablo 3. Graphics may a have been a bit downsized, but the controls and menus actually improved vs. the PC version....
But yeah, thats about the only one that comes to mind out of the thousands of other ports that sucked.
Re:Unless you've spent $300 on a GPU... by Agares · 2014-07-10 00:31 · Score: 1

This is true, I usually wait for stuff to go one sale or buy it used so that way I don't have to play full price. There aren't hardly any games these days worth the $60 price tag they put on them.
Re:Unless you've spent $300 on a GPU... by CronoCloud · 2014-07-10 04:08 · Score: 1

You linked to a machine that you specifically chose that would support your argument. If you want a real comparison, feel free to price out parts.
No, the PS4 is an off the shelf item, that's why I picked an off the shelf machine to compare it with. If you can find a machine that costs $399, has 8GB of GDDR5 RAM, an octocore CPU (of any kind), and an AMD 7870 or Nvidia GT750 or better, point a link.

Nope, that's a dedicated GPU. Try looking at the shitty integrated GPUs that they stuff into their "APUs" because that's what the PS4 and Xbone use.
Ah, you're confusing PC style APU's with the custom ones the consoles use. The PS4's APU uses a GCN based GPU, same architecture as the desktop HD 77xx-79xx. Basically it's a 7870 with 2 CU's disabled, it has 1152 GPU cores with 1.84 teraflops of performance, look it up.

No, more like $100. For $120, I could get a 750Ti. I don't know where you shop, but it's overpriced. You must get ripped off a lot.
Does the word "average price" mean anything to you?

and the PS4's GPU is significantly weaker than a 7870.
Slightly weaker yes, because of the two disabled CU's it's less than the full 7870, but more than the 7850. It's nowhere near as low powered as the "intel HD style" graphics you're implying it is.

I've only been programming and doing component level hardware diagnostics and repair for 30 years, 20 of them professionally.

Doesn't mean you actually know anything about gaming consoles does it? Especially if you have the usual "PC Master Race" biases.
Like I said, if you can find a pre-built machine for $399 as I describe above, you can get back to me.
Re:Unless you've spent $300 on a GPU... by CronoCloud · 2014-07-10 05:22 · Score: 1

The NES version looks low res with about three colours, that is if you count black as a colour.
16 actually, I've counted.

How about a real comparison with more than just a single screenshot.
Lots of text on black on those NEC PC88/PC98 screens. The NES version does look better. You'd be able to see the difference better in battles with multiple opponents, and while outdoors. There are no screenshots of the NES version for that.

(Deus Ex)And yes, the PC version still looks miles better than that blurry, low res mess with crap lighting on PS2.
Miles is an exaggeration. The PS2 version compares favorably with the GOTY version, which I do have. Want to know why I have it? To actually put the statements made by guys like you to the test. I've done the same for the PC versions of Diablo 1, Diablo 3, and Fallout 3.

(Half-life)Yeah, I wonder why it never released for Dreamcast. Oh, that's right, it was too weak to handle it.
It was two weeks from gold when it was canceled...because of changing market conditions. Meaning the PS2 was stomping the Dreamcast in sales.

The PS2 version is still so low resolution that any "enhancements" that they made are effectively hidden behind huge, pixelated blocks.
What huge pixelated blocks. did you see it on a PS2 connected to an old TV over RF or something? Try playing it in widescreen mode (yes, it has it.) over component cables. While I don't have a capture card...I could take a screenshot.

(Deus Ex)Want to have a guess at why game companies segregate PC and console players in FPS games? It's because all FPS game are unplayable on gamepad. Watching someone try to do it is hilarious and sad at the same time. Even the very worst PC FPS player can spank the best console FPS player because it's such a horrible means of control.
That issue is not relevant here, since DX is a single player game and any purported control issues are not relevant because the PS2 version supports PC style control schemes. Though again, I recommend hybrid control, analog for movement, mouse for aiming, the game supports it.

(Sacred 2)As someone who played both games on PC, it is definitely a mouse oriented game.
It's quite possible to design an interface that doesn't require a mouse. You've played the PC version, it's designed for the mouse. The PS3/Xbox 360 versions have a nicely designed control system.

Have fun navigating every single menu option, inventory item and on-screen buttons with a gamepad.
You do know that it's possible for a game to use different interfaces on different platforms right? So the PS3 version is designed to work well on the Dual Shock.

Basically you cannot refute the true statement that I made, so you cry troll.
I can take screenshots if you want, or point to video.
http://static.gamesradar.com/i...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Surprised you didn't mention the real fault of PSone Diablo, the saved games eating up 10 blocks on a memory card.

They are trying to sell their PC to console port, so of course they are going to try to spin it as though gamepads aren't crap for this style of game.
Gamepads work well with Diablo clones, we've known this since 1998. That's why there have been many such games since then on various consoles. Diablo, Darkstone, Baldur's Gate Dark Alliance 1 and 2, Champions of Norrath 1 and 2, X-Men Legends 1 and 2, Marvel Ultimate Alliance 1 and 2. Hunter the Reckoning, Sacred 2, Dungeon Hunter Alliance, the 3 Untold Legends games, D&D Wa

Still stuck with an Athlon XP 6000+ by rsilvergun · 2014-07-08 15:31 · Score: 2

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/

Re:Still stuck with an Athlon XP 6000+ by I'm+New+Around+Here · 2014-07-09 02:26 · Score: 1

Have you tried Daggerfall?

--
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.

i haven't done any gaming in years... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-08 15:31 · Score: 3, Funny

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.

$300 for a GPU by Khyber · 2014-07-08 15:34 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.

Re:$300 for a GPU by Darinbob · 2014-07-08 16:41 · Score: 1

Because you no longer need the best card in the store to make new games look decent if running at the monitor's native resolution. You can still crank things up if you want and if you have a monitor that can handle it, but most people really can't discern the detail difference.
Re:$300 for a GPU by Charliemopps · 2014-07-08 23:12 · Score: 3, Insightful

Meanhile, the end result doesn't look THAT much better than the PS3, with its measly GeForce 7900 series.
This is typical. I don't even understand what this story is about. Yes, you need a $300 GPU in your PC to play a brand new AAA title for a brand new console generation. This happens every generation and for about a year the console people will be shouting "Nanner nanner bo bo" at us... But next year we'll only need a $150 card, and the year after that a $75 card. They'll still need their console and its price wont get cut in half every year.
How do PC gamers address this problem? We don't play AAA titles designed for a console the same year that console was released. They suck for PC anyway.
Re:$300 for a GPU by nabsltd · 2014-07-09 01:03 · Score: 1

How do PC gamers address this problem? We don't play AAA titles designed for a console the same year that console was released. They suck for PC anyway.
And, they also might have less tweaks for graphics so that in a few years when that $75 card can run the game at max settings, you still can't get any better quality with a $300 card (which matches today's $700 cards). All the $300 card will do is allow you to run at a higher overall resolution, which eventually will start to expose things like lower polygon counts, lack of anti-aliasing (even injected after the fact sometimes doesn't work), etc.
Re:$300 for a GPU by Stormwatch · 2014-07-09 02:07 · Score: 1

A $150 card will beat the Xbone right now.

--
Circumcision is child abuse.
Re:$300 for a GPU by mythosaz · 2014-07-09 05:02 · Score: 1

Do you have to connect that video card to anything, like, say, a computer?
Re:$300 for a GPU by Stormwatch · 2014-07-09 05:24 · Score: 1

Indeed. And in this review, the guy explains how to build a solid gaming PC for $500, same price as the quite weaker Xbox One (before they got rid of the Kinect).

--
Circumcision is child abuse.
Re:$300 for a GPU by XxtraLarGe · 2014-07-09 05:59 · Score: 1

Meanhile, the end result doesn't look THAT much better than the PS3, with its measly GeForce 7900 series.
I actually bought it for my PS3, and the graphic quality seems pretty good to me. Of course, I'm more about the game play than anything else.
It's pretty fun, but a lot more driving & gunplay than I was expecting, and there's no real feeling of consequence.
It's easy to get good karma simply by catching criminals, and if you accidentally kill a bystander, it's a minor hit to your karma. I'd expect it to tank, but it doesn't. Hacking people's bank accounts seems to not have any effect, which seems like it should. It would be nice if they had offered a white hat/black hat path that you could take.
Also, if you want, it's pretty easy to level up right away by simply doing the criminal detections and hacking everyone in site in order to buy 5-star weapons from the get go. There doesn't seem to be an XP cap on the criminal investigations, and they're always worth the same.

--
Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
Re:$300 for a GPU by Khyber · 2014-07-09 14:07 · Score: 1

"I actually bought it for my PS3, and the graphic quality seems pretty good to me"
On a GeForce 7900 Modification. I've got the GeForce 7950GT with double the RAM. Why could I not play this thing at minimum 720p with a steady and decent framerate? Why do the minimum GPU specs show nVidia GeForce GTX460 as the minimum GPU when it's running just fine and looks just fine on a freaking piece of hardware FIVE GENERATIONS OLDER?

--
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.

Say what? by djupedal · 2014-07-08 15:36 · Score: 5, Insightful

Why does this work so hard to sound organic, when it seems more like a boldfaced ad for xbox?

Re:Say what? by rwven · 2014-07-08 15:46 · Score: 5, Informative

Yeah, pretty much. Watch Dogs doesn't look nearly as good as plenty of PC games out right now, and runs worse than most.
This is nothing more than a deliberately handicapped, badly ported console game. The author is being a shill for the XBone, but the truth of the matter is that he's hiding Ubisoft's dirty downgrade of the game.
PCs were capable of far more than these machines a year before they were released. Now the comparison is just a bad joke.

Bad Ports by wisnoskij · 2014-07-08 15:36 · Score: 4, Informative

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.

Re:Bad Ports by sd4f · 2014-07-08 17:29 · Score: 1

Although with steam, we're starting to see a class of game which is significantly worse than ever before. Broken, buggy and incomplete games which are PC exclusive...
Re:Bad Ports by jones_supa · 2014-07-08 21:53 · Score: 1

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.
Mmmyeah. I never got some of the mini-games, such as bowling, to work properly with keyboard and mouse in GTA IV for PC. Great quality assurance, LOL.
Re:Bad Ports by Tukz · 2014-07-08 23:37 · Score: 2

The correct buzz term is "Early Access" and people pay lots of money for it...

--
- Don't do what I do, it's probably not healthy nor safe. -
Re:Bad Ports by Stuarticus · 2014-07-09 01:25 · Score: 1

I don't think they worked properly on xbox from what I remember, the mini games were awful in that game...

--
If you think someone isn't free to have a different definition of "freedom" you may be a tyrant.
Re:Bad Ports by jones_supa · 2014-07-09 03:04 · Score: 1

Well, they were quite cheesy, I skipped a lot of them. I wonder if somewhere inside the engine the "Roman reputation" parameter sunk down quite deep when I always made excuses to the "hey cousin want to play some pool" phone calls. :)
Re:Bad Ports by CronoCloud · 2014-07-09 07:42 · Score: 1

And shitty PC to console ports, Half-Life 2, I'm looking at you.
Re:Bad Ports by sd4f · 2014-07-09 11:02 · Score: 1

But not just early access games, there's stuff like air control, bad rats, there's even a game whose name eludes me at the moment, where in order to get sound or music, you have to burn a CD... For a digitally distributed game... Early access is criticised, and rightfully so because there have been some games that sold and continue selling games but have decided to give up on development.

Oh look, it's this thread again by bhcompy · 2014-07-08 15:42 · Score: 1

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?)

the mac phenomenon by schlachter · 2014-07-08 15:54 · Score: 1

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.

Re:the mac phenomenon by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-08 16:33 · Score: 1

Now all the kids (and myself) only own Mac laptops
Well that was silly then wasn't it.
Re:the mac phenomenon by Darinbob · 2014-07-08 16:43 · Score: 2

There are more and more games that run on Macs now, at least on Steam (I'm not a Steam lover, but if you've got a mac it's a good way to go).
Although if you've got a macbook pro, do you have money left over to buy a console?
Re:the mac phenomenon by Nyder · 2014-07-08 18:48 · Score: 2

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.
Let know know when you find a current gen console for $200.

--
Be seeing you...
Re:the mac phenomenon by kamapuaa · 2014-07-08 19:03 · Score: 1

PS3s and XBoxes are still being made/sold, and still have games coming out for them, and that isn't changing any time soon.

--
Slashdot: providing anti-social weirdos a soapbox, since 1997.
Re:the mac phenomenon by jones_supa · 2014-07-08 22:33 · Score: 1

Yep. And the PS3 and XB360 are still very good platforms actually.
Re:the mac phenomenon by CronoCloud · 2014-07-09 07:38 · Score: 1

because the Xbone and PS4 are not next Gen consoles. They are at best last gen.5
I don't agree. The PS3 has a single core hyperthreaded CPU with 6 SPU's tacked on. The PS4 has an 8 core CPU
The PS3 has 256MB of RAM and 256MB of VRAM, the PS4 has 8 GB of unified ram, 16X as much.
The PS4 is a great a leap over the PS3 as the PS2 was over the PS1 or the PS3 over the PS2.
Re:the mac phenomenon by schlachter · 2014-07-09 08:07 · Score: 1

There are more and more games that run on Macs now, at least on Steam (I'm not a Steam lover, but if you've got a mac it's a good way to go).
Not really. There's a small subset of games, typically at much higher price points and late to market. I get 25 games for free each yr with XBOX LIVE GOLD, and pick up many AAA titles for $5 to $15 via on demand sales.

Although if you've got a macbook pro, do you have money left over to buy a console?
You can find an xbox360 for $100 on ebay/craigslist these days...or get a new one for $200. It's not just money though, there's no updating it, no viruses, no booting up and shutting down, no installing games, etc. It just works. And if it does break, just toss it or sell it on ebay and buy a new one. No need to spend hours/days trying to resurrect it.

--
My God can beat up your God. Just kidding...don't take offense. I know there's no God.
Re:the mac phenomenon by schlachter · 2014-07-09 08:12 · Score: 1

Here's a current gen deal: xbox 360 for $150
Deal has expired; but they come and go.
http://slickdeals.net/f/555149...
Oh, you mean the xbox one or PS4; well those are the latest gen, but xbox360/PS3 are still current gen.
In fact, they are much better consoles to own for now. More games. Cheap games. Used games available.

--
My God can beat up your God. Just kidding...don't take offense. I know there's no God.
Re:the mac phenomenon by Nyder · 2014-07-09 13:50 · Score: 1

Here's a current gen deal: xbox 360 for $150
Deal has expired; but they come and go.
http://slickdeals.net/f/555149...
Oh, you mean the xbox one or PS4; well those are the latest gen, but xbox360/PS3 are still current gen.
In fact, they are much better consoles to own for now. More games. Cheap games. Used games available.
I love stupid people.

--
Be seeing you...
Re:the mac phenomenon by schlachter · 2014-07-10 01:29 · Score: 1

Well, there are plenty of them out there for you. Go breed with them.

--
My God can beat up your God. Just kidding...don't take offense. I know there's no God.

you can't just by maweki · 2014-07-08 15:57 · Score: 1

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.

Re:you can't just by sd4f · 2014-07-08 17:32 · Score: 1

Well, if you're trying to compare value for money you can... Once you factor in cost of games, it starts to become a different story.

Really bad game to use for this comparison. by EvilSS · 2014-07-08 16:00 · Score: 1

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.

Re:Really bad game to use for this comparison. by mjwx · 2014-07-08 16:45 · Score: 3, Insightful

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.
What do you mean by start... This has been happening for years.

--
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
Re:Really bad game to use for this comparison. by UnknownSoldier · 2014-07-08 17:02 · Score: 1

> Can anyone really tell much above 30 fps?
Oh please. There is a MAJOR difference between gaming at 30 Hz, 60 Hz, and 120 Hz. I play most of my games at 60 Hz and can tell _instantly_ when a game drops to 30 Hz.
This is NOT limited to games.
OWE my eyes @ 24 fps !
Silky smooth @ 60 fps !
If you don't have a 120 Hz monitor and haven't tried LightBoost then you really don't even know what the hell you are talking about saying "30 fps is 'good enough'."
Some game devs are completely ignorant of the importance of 60 Hz.
* http://kotaku.com/5393106/inso...
Thankfully some game devs DO understand the importance of 60 Hz.
* http://www.gamespot.com/articl...
Please go read up on Temporal Anti-Aliasing if you don't understand why movies can get away with built in Motion Blur.
Re:Really bad game to use for this comparison. by jo_ham · 2014-07-08 19:47 · Score: 1

Do you need that much FPS? Can anyone really tell much above 30fps? That used to be my baseline for knowing when I could finish tweaking the settings and start playing.
Absolutely. There is a clear difference between 30 and 60 fps when playing computer games.
Anything above 60 is gravy, but getting a game to stay at 60 is what you want, since it tends to be the refresh rate of the screen you're playing on.
Re:Really bad game to use for this comparison. by TheDarkMaster · 2014-07-08 23:52 · Score: 1

Maybe the PC version is actually the console version running within a custom virtual machine.

--
Religion: The greatest weapon of mass destruction of all time
Re:Really bad game to use for this comparison. by Kelbear · 2014-07-09 02:06 · Score: 1

There's a significant issue specific to Titanfall, where the mouse sensitivity is linked to your framerate. If you experience slowdown within the game, a movement of the hand that normally moves the crosshairs 15degrees, may only move it 10 degrees.
It's like trying to aim with someone else's hand on a second mouse fighting back against your crosshairs. That kind of unpredictable mouse sensitivity variation also hits at the most inopportune times since a framerate drop is often concurrent with increased activity in the game.
Most games, even if you drop from 60 fps to 30fps, a hand motion that moves the crosshairs 15 degrees, will still move the crosshairs the same 15 degrees.
Re:Really bad game to use for this comparison. by EvilSS · 2014-07-09 02:55 · Score: 1

Whether I need it or not isn't the point. The fact that, with the hardware that I have, the game runs so poorly (I retested last night after I posted this and my framerates dip down into the 20's in some cases like driving on a motorcycle) shows how badly optimized the game is for the PC.

For comparison I can run The Grid 2, a graphics and physics intensive game, at 50-60 FPS at 4K* , but I can't get consistently above 50fps, and get drops into the 20's in Watch_Dogs running it at 1080p.

*on a Samsung U28D590D

--
I browse on +1 so AC's need not respond, I won't see it.
Re:Really bad game to use for this comparison. by EvilSS · 2014-07-09 02:59 · Score: 1

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.
What do you mean by start... This has been happening for years.
Yea, but it really seems to be accelerating lately. I went for years on a 8800GT running most games without much issue. Granted, over the years I've had to dial back the settings as games got more resource hungry. Last year I picked up a 660Ti thinking it would last at least another few years. Already replaced it because it was already having trouble running games at high or ultra less than a year later (something that took a few years with the 8800).

--
I browse on +1 so AC's need not respond, I won't see it.
Re:Really bad game to use for this comparison. by EvilSS · 2014-07-09 03:00 · Score: 1

Maybe the PC version is actually the console version running within a custom virtual machine.
It's not but OK.

--
I browse on +1 so AC's need not respond, I won't see it.
Re:Really bad game to use for this comparison. by EvilSS · 2014-07-09 03:07 · Score: 1

There's a significant issue specific to Titanfall, where the mouse sensitivity is linked to your framerate. If you experience slowdown within the game, a movement of the hand that normally moves the crosshairs 15degrees, may only move it 10 degrees.
It's like trying to aim with someone else's hand on a second mouse fighting back against your crosshairs. That kind of unpredictable mouse sensitivity variation also hits at the most inopportune times since a framerate drop is often concurrent with increased activity in the game.
Most games, even if you drop from 60 fps to 30fps, a hand motion that moves the crosshairs 15 degrees, will still move the crosshairs the same 15 degrees.
Yea they have been patching the game trying to fix those timing issues ever since they unlocked the framerate. Turns out pretty much everything in the game was clocked to framerate after they did whatever it was they did to uncap it. When they unlocked it people found they could run faster, shoot faster, etc if they were running on 144hz monitors. Totally not surprised mouse is affected by it as well. I really love that game and I'm disappointed in how the game has been handled by Respawn. I get they had some outside legal issue that ate into their development time and budget, so I'm holding out hope that they learn from the mistakes of Titanfall and fix them in Titanfall 2.

--
I browse on +1 so AC's need not respond, I won't see it.
Re:Really bad game to use for this comparison. by Darinbob · 2014-07-09 07:06 · Score: 1

Ok, there's another game on the list to avoid (never heard of it, so that was easy).
Re:Really bad game to use for this comparison. by CronoCloud · 2014-07-09 07:31 · Score: 1

shoving it out the door, and telling the PC community to just throw more hardware at it.

Hasn't that been standard procedure for ALL PC games, not just the ports? And now that we've got developers who were formerly x86-Windows only doing console games, they're doing the same thing to we console gamers.

This is all moot. by dohzer · 2014-07-08 16:05 · Score: 2

The game is rubbish, so who cares which hardware it runs best on?!

But then... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-08 16:09 · Score: 1

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.

Slashdot degrades further and further by Jahoda · 2014-07-08 16:09 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.

Re:Slashdot degrades further and further by kamapuaa · 2014-07-08 19:10 · Score: 1

But it's true, right? If a cheap Dell off-the-shelf computer was far better than the current generation, that would definitely show how terrible the current consoles are. Instead, you need to spend maybe $800 minimum, you probably want to build the computer yourself and therefor need to have the time and the knowledge to build the computer yourself and then deal with any potential issues...
It's not really a story that you can do better than a console if you're willing to put in a larger amount of money, time, and expertise.

--
Slashdot: providing anti-social weirdos a soapbox, since 1997.
Re:Slashdot degrades further and further by Agares · 2014-07-09 02:07 · Score: 1

I have a Radeon HD and truthfully I haven't played a game that bogs it down yet. However we do need to take into account that a lot of games are built to console standards so that is probably why. Also the graphics for the Xbox One and PS4 do not impress me very much. They are only marginally better than the previous generation.

Re:Recent allegations... by Payden+K.+Pringle · 2014-07-08 16:16 · Score: 3, Insightful

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

This ignores the fact... by Karmashock · 2014-07-08 16:17 · Score: 2

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.

Re:This ignores the fact... by Zeromous · 2014-07-09 02:34 · Score: 1

But then you won't buy Watch Dogs HD on Steam Sale 4 years from now...

--
---Up Up Down Down Left Right Left Right B A START

A 7950 cost 149$ by Osgeld · 2014-07-08 16:20 · Score: 3, Informative

and has been in my box for over a year

obvious troll story

Re:A 7950 cost 149$ by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-08 17:07 · Score: 1

Yeah, when they said "only a small fractions of gamers have these" i thought oh wow it must be like those ATI FireGL cards in the new Mac Pro that cost like $2,000 each, but then i looked it up and it turns out they cost around $200. Even a kid with a part time minimum wage job on the weekend could swing that, give me a fucking break. Microsoft is always so damn shady, luckily being a Windows user is now a lifestyle choice and not mandatory like it was 15 years ago.

because it fucking is by gl4ss · 2014-07-08 16:22 · Score: 2

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.

Re:because it fucking is by rtb61 · 2014-07-08 16:52 · Score: 4, Interesting

Let's check the differences. On a PC I can still watch a DVD on my big screen at the same time. Note the appear equally as large as my PC screen is far closer to me than my big screen TV. On my PC I can play a full range of FTP MMO, free flash games on the internet. I can browse the internet while watching TV. Never to forget I have a fully functional upgradable, dual bootable Computer and not just a games console. I can also buy much cheaper games without having to pay a quite expensive console tax and games discount sooner. With PC at a lan party everyone has their own screen so far better multi-player gaming. I have found every console port to be not that good games pretty much dumbed down PC games with clumsy controls.
When comparing a console to a PC, you are really only comparing the additional cost of turning a PC into a gaming machine versus the console and the loss of use of your TV or a second TV (youch, you have just paid for your PC gaming rig). Gaming consoles of course do suit a particular IQ range of the video gaming market, there is not doubt about that and I'll stop there.

--
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
Re:because it fucking is by sd4f · 2014-07-08 17:27 · Score: 1

I seriously doubt a greater conspiracy. I think it's a matter of releasing the game at the same time on all platforms, so first, they don't bother optimising the code for PC, second they don't want any striking differences between the platforms, because it will upset one group of fanboys who have invested their egos into that system.
Point being, it's better to just aim for the lowest common denominator. This was visible last generation, where at first there was some variation between X360 and PS4, until eventually the multiport games looked the same on both. There's no doubt that this is just an extension of that to now. They don't want their poster game for the new consoles to look unimportant, so they didn't go to any great lengths to make the PC version stand out.
Re:because it fucking is by phorm · 2014-07-09 03:35 · Score: 1

On a PC, I can still play almost all of my games from up to a decade ago. Some of them require VM's (e.g. DOSBox, or perhaps XP in VirtualBox), but my library is still fairly playable excepting some online play and disc-rot.
XBox can't play 360, and PS4 can't play PS3. That's lame. I don't want to have 10 consoles sitting around
I think Sony actually had a good idea with adding a chip to the early PS3's for backwards compatibility. I think that current-gen would do better if this concept continued. I have a 360 with a decent library of games. The XBone didn't really launch with a lot of offerings, but as my old console is starting to show signs of wear I might have considered the newer model instead of fixing/replacing my old one.
Re:because it fucking is by CronoCloud · 2014-07-09 07:44 · Score: 1

I think Sony actually had a good idea with adding a chip to the early PS3's for backwards compatibility. I think that current-gen would do better if this concept continued.
And that was one of the reason the PS3 deluxe launch model cost $599! Don't you remember all the complaints about the price, and how they should have left backwards compatibility out because people buy a new console to play new games, not old ones? Saw that right here on Slashdot.
Re:because it fucking is by NoZart · 2014-07-09 17:54 · Score: 1

With PC at a lan party everyone has their own screen so far better multi-player gaming.
Depends on how you see it. If you are a Progaymer that sees games as a way to legthen his e-dick, sure. But Singlescreen Multiplayer is way more conductive to communication and fun. Whenever i attend PC only lans, it's an ambience like a graveyard. As soon there are Consoles involved, you get to hear a bunch of people having fun.

Gaming consoles of course do suit a particular IQ range of the video gaming market, there is not doubt about that and I'll stop there.
For someone "obviously" in a higher IQ bracket, you sure steep to low levels.
Re:because it fucking is by NoZart · 2014-07-09 17:59 · Score: 1

Also, i tried the mod that supposedly allows the awesome graphics from the Trailers. And while being beautiful, they suck gameplay wise. Having enemies being blurred out at a distance when you try to shoot them is a no Go. The implementation of DoF was just written for the trailers and nothing else.
Re:because it fucking is by phorm · 2014-07-10 03:05 · Score: 1

Perhaps so, but keep in mind those older models *still* resell for more than many others, and before the release of the PS4 you could see good condition CECHE01's selling for $100+ over the price of the regular models. When the PS3 first came out, the price jump over other consoles also included the blu-ray drive etc, and generally better build quality. The PS3 did have some issues, but the RROD and laser-burn (cheaping out over a 5c bumper, geeze) issues on the XB360 were legendary.
My understanding is that the main difference was in the chip that supported the older hardware, so why not just make it an option which could be easily added? A little socket for the chip and a dip-switch or jumper would probably do.
Re:because it fucking is by sd4f · 2014-07-10 11:02 · Score: 1

Yea the uselessness of the DoF was quickly obvious when some gameplay footage was put up. Looks awesome for screenshots and 'on rails' trailers, but awful to play the game with.
Re:because it fucking is by CronoCloud · 2014-07-10 12:39 · Score: 1

before the release of the PS4 you could see good condition CECHE01's selling for $100+ over the price of the regular models.

They do? Didn't know that. (I have one)

My understanding is that the main difference was in the chip that supported the older hardware, so why not just make it an option which could be easily added? A little socket for the chip and a dip-switch or jumper would probably do.
Like the N64 RAM upgrade? That might work, and is an interesting idea. Though I'm not sure that would be feasible to install for some users. And you know how people are about how "addons always fail".

Re:Recent allegations... by gl4ss · 2014-07-08 16:23 · Score: 2

..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.

Re:Recent allegations... by Mashiki · 2014-07-08 16:30 · Score: 2

Going by what modders are pulling out of the game it does appear that it is true.

--
Om, nomnomnom...

Re:Recent allegations... by 0xdeaddead · 2014-07-08 16:54 · Score: 1

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...

Surprising results? by DRMShill · 2014-07-08 17:20 · Score: 1

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.

Argue selection by tepples · 2014-07-08 18:33 · Score: 1

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.

Re:Recent allegations... by pslytely+psycho · 2014-07-08 18:35 · Score: 2

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

Multiple PCs and multiple copies by tepples · 2014-07-08 18:42 · Score: 1

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?

Re:Multiple PCs and multiple copies by nabsltd · 2014-07-09 01:09 · Score: 1

...which still doesn't allow two different Steam logins to play the same game at the same time unless it is in both their game libraries.
I'm surprised there are console games that allow you to buy one copy and play on more than one console at the same time, as tepples seems to imply in the GP post.
Re:Multiple PCs and multiple copies by tepples · 2014-07-09 01:14 · Score: 1

I'm surprised there are console games that allow you to buy one copy and play on more than one console at the same time
Three are plenty on Nintendo DS, such as Mario Kart DS and Tetris DS. I even know of one on Wii: Dr. Mario Online Rx. But on stationary consoles, same-screen play is far more common.
Re:Multiple PCs and multiple copies by Khyber · 2014-07-09 01:49 · Score: 2

"There's no practical limit on the number of USB controllers you can attach to one PC"
Yes, there is. 127 per USB controller.

--
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
Re:Multiple PCs and multiple copies by Agares · 2014-07-09 02:33 · Score: 1

He said no pratical limit. No one in their right mind would use 127 controllers.
Re:Multiple PCs and multiple copies by Khyber · 2014-07-09 02:37 · Score: 1

I already use 60+ ports for my camera rigs on my musical instruments, why not for controllers? Let's see, I've got NES to USB, Genesis to USB, PSX to USB, a few regular thrustmater and firestorm joysticks, couple flight sticks, wheel/pedals, and a lot more.
I could easily knock 127 devices out with just my every day stuff.

--
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
Re:Multiple PCs and multiple copies by tlhIngan · 2014-07-09 03:23 · Score: 1

I'm surprised there are console games that allow you to buy one copy and play on more than one console at the same time, as tepples seems to imply in the GP post.
Two on PS3/4 and Xbox360/One - the "master" console (which can be changed on either) which lets the game play offline, and the subsidiary one, which lets the game play while logged in online (though only one login per account).

But it's true, right? If a cheap Dell off-the-shelf computer was far better than the current generation, that would definitely show how terrible the current consoles are. Instead, you need to spend maybe $800 minimum, you probably want to build the computer yourself and therefor need to have the time and the knowledge to build the computer yourself and then deal with any potential issues...
Are you kidding? Dell's $500 SteamBox entry was a pathetic i3 entrant. And $500 gets you an Xbone with depth-sensing camera. You could save $100 and get a PS4 or Xbone without.
Someone needs to explain to Valve and everyone that if SteamBoxes are to be the "next big thing in consoles" that they need to cost like one. And to be stuck with it because people don't want to upgrade it yearly - if I spend $500 on a SteamBox, I expect to be able to play the latest games on it for 5+ years at 1080p with the same quality (or better - console graphics typically improve through its lifespan as people optimized).
And if a SteamBox is supposed to be a gaming PC and not a console, well, geez, how about selling it more as a PC than as a console.
Re:Multiple PCs and multiple copies by Cederic · 2014-07-09 03:55 · Score: 1

That's very atypical, and still not practical. You are rather unlikely to try and actually use of all of those devices at once.
Re:Multiple PCs and multiple copies by tepples · 2014-07-09 04:10 · Score: 1

For one thing, if you have a quality PlayStation to USB adapter, you don't really need NES or Super NES controllers because PlayStation 1 digital controllers work well for those platforms. For another, you can hang sets of devices on hubs and plug in your "camera rigs" hub, your "flight simulator joystick" hub, your "console controllers" hub, etc. when you need them. Keeping unused devices physically disconnected eliminates the CPU overhead and electric power consumption associated with polling them.
But the real problem is convincing major publishers to port couch-coop games to PC in the first place.
Re:Multiple PCs and multiple copies by Agares · 2014-07-09 04:48 · Score: 1

Well I am sure there are special cases, however for the average user it isn't really needed.
Re:Multiple PCs and multiple copies by CronoCloud · 2014-07-09 08:18 · Score: 1

Someone needs to explain to Valve and everyone that if

SteamBoxes are to be the "next big thing in consoles" that they need to cost like one. And to be stuck with it because people don't want to upgrade it yearly - if I spend $500 on a SteamBox, I expect to be able to play the latest games on it for 5+ years at 1080p with the same quality (or better - console graphics typically improve through its lifespan as people optimized).
This is why I think that the Steambox will end up as basically vaporware. Sooner or later someone is going to lay the facts on Gabe on how he can't always have what he wants...because it's just not practical.
Re:Multiple PCs and multiple copies by Khyber · 2014-07-09 14:04 · Score: 1

I have huge parties. Being able to entertain everyone at once is quite handy.

--
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.

Copies per household by tepples · 2014-07-08 18:46 · Score: 1

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.

Re:Copies per household by tepples · 2014-07-10 01:36 · Score: 1

I'm not sure what sort of hyperbole you mean by "nobody", but I still see same-screen multiplayer in households in my sample set.

$250 from 4 years ago is fine by loufoque · 2014-07-08 19:14 · Score: 1

I bought my GPU for 250 dollars 4 years ago and it still runs all games on high settings.

Watchdogs graphics and gameplay by CharlieWeasley · 2014-07-08 21:49 · Score: 1

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?

Re:Watchdogs graphics and gameplay by NoZart · 2014-07-09 18:16 · Score: 1

Controls on foot are ok, driving is way to sensitive. Gameplay-wise, it's a GTA IV clone with a little less diversity in its side-quests and one-button hacking of stuff as a twist. Content wise, the potential for a great infowars/surveilance conspiracy is wasted and replaced with a standard crime scene.

Duh... by Robert+Goatse · 2014-07-08 21:57 · Score: 1

"...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.

Re:Recent allegations... by stealth_finger · 2014-07-08 22:18 · Score: 1

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

Multiple PCs and multiple copies by SScorpio · 2014-07-09 01:03 · Score: 1

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.

Re:Recent allegations... by Theaetetus · 2014-07-09 01:22 · Score: 1

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".

Re:Recent allegations... by Theaetetus · 2014-07-09 01:26 · Score: 1

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.

The end-all logic by slashmydots · 2014-07-09 01:44 · Score: 2

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.

Re:Less hardware, less bloat too by Khyber · 2014-07-09 02:07 · Score: 2

" 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.

Re:Stupid article by Khyber · 2014-07-09 02:12 · Score: 1

"but lets be frank - all AAA games shipping to date don't have the quality of textures required to saturate even PCI Express 1,"

Let alone AGP. I think we're just now saturating that bus entirely.

--
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.

Re:Recent allegations... by EvilSS · 2014-07-09 02:48 · Score: 1

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.

whole article is misleading and pointless by JustNiz · 2014-07-09 02:55 · Score: 1

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.

Origins by phorm · 2014-07-09 03:28 · Score: 1

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).

Deliberate anti-Wine measures by tepples · 2014-07-09 03:40 · Score: 1

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.

XBox controller by phorm · 2014-07-09 03:41 · Score: 1

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.

Wine is not an emulator by tepples · 2014-07-09 03:45 · Score: 1

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.

PC games designed with future console port in mind by tepples · 2014-07-09 03:48 · Score: 1

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.

Three indie PC-to-console ports by tepples · 2014-07-09 03:56 · Score: 1

Was there a serious problem with the console port of Spelunky or Cave Story or La-Mulana?

HTPC vicious cycle; button layouts by tepples · 2014-07-09 04:04 · Score: 1

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?

A word that starts with N by tepples · 2014-07-09 04:15 · Score: 1

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?

Re:Recent allegations... by SharpFang · 2014-07-09 04:57 · Score: 1

"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

Re:Recent allegations... by SharpFang · 2014-07-09 04:59 · Score: 1

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

Re:Recent allegations... by NoZart · 2014-07-09 18:03 · Score: 1

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.

Re:Recent allegations... by Payden+K.+Pringle · 2014-07-10 02:27 · Score: 1

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.

Re:Recent allegations... by Mashiki · 2014-07-10 10:15 · Score: 1

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...

Re:Recent allegations... by NoZart · 2014-07-11 19:57 · Score: 1

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.

Re:Recent allegations... by Payden+K.+Pringle · 2014-07-12 16:14 · Score: 1

... 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.

Re:Recent allegations... by SharpFang · 2014-07-23 18:17 · Score: 1

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

Slashdot Mirror

Watch Dogs Graphics and Gameplay: PC Vs. Xbox One, With Surprising Results

151 of 210 comments (clear)