Talented Developer CD Projekt RED Talks Resolution-Gate And Frame-Rates

iGR: "The core gaming community has been up-in-arms about native resolution and frame-rate in current-gen PS4 and Xbox One titles. Third-party releases have received the most attention as they typically showcase contrasting resolution and/or performance between PS4 and Xbox One. Square Enix’s Tomb Raider: Definitive Edition garnered quite a bit of attention, specifically over frame-rate.

CD Projekt RED will be releasing The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt on multiple platforms (PC, PS4, Xbox One) sometime in 2014. When I was given the chance to speak with talented independent developer, I wanted to know where the studio weighed in on the hot-button issues surrounding our current generation of game consoles."

[OrangePowerz]

Obviously gameplay is more important then the resolution, but we wouldn't have those discussion if the more expensive hardware would have the higher resolution and framerate.

If nVidia or ATI would release a graphics card that is more expensive compared yo another card but offers less performance it wouldn't fare very well in hardware reviews.

[porkChop]

The whole excuse about gameplay is just one big cop out. It's the same game, it plays the same on all platforms. When you're trying to make a decision of which version to buy you're thinking about graphics and performance, and in an age where even smartphones display in 1080p, it's not asking for too much. It's become the standard.

[cozomel]

sshhh, dont tell them that, they havent noticed that yet.

Oh yeah, while the ps4 version may have the better res. the x1 version definitely has the better gameplay, and we all know thats what its about. So let the stupid sony fanboys have their better graphics while we get the version with the better gameplay, he he, suckers /s

[badz149]

@porkChop

THIS! your comment is full of WIN and understanding of what is important! have a bubble

"resolution doesn't matter" LOL even on the same game? so much hypocrisy and stupidity just to be loyal!

oh and it's funny because people will respond to this comment with "if you care about resolution so much, you'll game on PC and the games are cheaper"!

when you can't win the argument, choose PC, OK!

[mediate-this]

What you said is a cop out, because you know the version you are going to buy, this game can not run on these new systems full specs regardless if the xb1 was not a factor.

[RedSky]

Is there really a need to rehash this endlessly.

So far, the X1's hardware appears to have slightly less graphical capacity than the PS4 according to the games released to date.

If you like Xbox exclusives, its media features, Kinect or something else then you'll still likely buy it. Likewise for the PS4.

What else is there to debate here?

[FamilyGuy]

This argument is crazy, Xbox trolls (trolls, not the regular supports) are getting so desperate when they could just simply say:

"I like Xbox better" or
"I like Xbox exclusives more" or
"I like the X1s features" or
"My friends are all buying X1s"

These are all valid reasons so why are they trying to use excuses that make NO SENSE?

Yes, the PS3 was "more expensive"
It was also more powerful as shown by 1st party titles.
It also had a blu-ray player.
It also had free online play.
It also had blu-tooth.
It also had 6-axis (gyroscopic) controllers).
It also had built in wifi.
It also had a built in web browser.
It also had PS2 B/C in early models.

That all = VALUE
You can actually SEE why the system was more expensive.

In the case of the X1 all we see is one thing:

It has Kinect 2.0 bundled in every box.

PS3 vs 360 is NOT a valid argument for "Why it's okay to pay more for a console with inferior tech". The PS3 WAS NEVER inferior to the 360.

[k3rn3ll]

That's kinda his point. New games come out and no one wants to talk about how good the games are. We just keep dredging up hardware reviews and not about the game itself

[Kribwalker]

Again and again with the more expensive console weaker specs argument. It's a 349 console with a $150 peripheral. The console may be weaker but that's not why the price is higher so give it a rest with that argument. Don't want the kinect then sell it on ebay, they go for anywhere from $120-200 there you go. Cheaper console.

And at nickseltzer BOOM that one smacked orangepowerz right in the face

[Sarcasm]

Right because there are hordes of people willing to buy a Kinect for their Xbox One when it's included with every console sold. That's the weakest argument I've seen to date.

[OrangePowerz]

First of all unless you find some stupid people you won`t sell Kinect for 120 and especially not for 200 given it comes with every single console.

Secondly I will buy one once they unbundle Kinect from the console and price it accordingly to it`s capabilities, because I`m not going to buy it and then hope that I find some not so smart person who buys the Kinect off of me.

Lastly why shouldn`t that argument matter? It mattered last gen to all the Xbox fans when they went on and on about how expensive the PS3 was because of the Blu Ray player and that it`s not necessary because it`s a games console and not a movie player. Yet again the same people claim that the price for the X1 is fine because of all the multimedia features it includes and that they are just as important as playing games. Now suddenly the more expensive console with more multimedia features is better because it`s made by the manufacturer they support.

The hypocrisy of people is ridiculous.

[nicksetzer1]

@orange is it not hypocrisy that you do the same thing you complained about last gen?
.
.
Guess you have special immunity to being a hypocrite right?

[Kribwalker]

People buy the kinect to mod it with computer applications just so you know. Just like they did with the xbox 360 kinect. And I never had a problem with the ps3 being more expensive because it had bluray. I bought one because it was the cheapest bluray player at the time, and played exclusives on it. The fact of being a hypocrite saying cheaper system and better multiplatform is what mattered to you but you bought a ps3 makes you one.

[OrangePowerz]

@Nick

I don`t remember saying that the price for the PS3 was great and that I was happy to pay the money it cost on launch.

Besides of that Xbox fans went on because of something that didn`t make games worse in itself. While the reading speed of the Blu Ray was slower compared to DVD and that was a reason why games used the hard drive installation the extra space was very useful when developers decided to take advantage of it. It allowed for better quality audio, higher quality FMVs (see FF13 as example) and better textures when developers decided to use the extra space. Or let`s say better when they had been allowed to take advantage because MS had a stranglehold on devs with their requirement that games need to be equal or almost equal to the versions on other platforms.

In contrast to that the features of the X1 take away resources that would otherwise be used for games. Playing a game and watching TV at the same and having to run 3 different OS to do all of that doesn`t help games in any way it just reduces the amount of resources available for the game. Having Kinect eat up resources doesn`t do anything for games either. The only thing so far is Project Spark using Kinect for mo cap, but there is nothing else besides of that that makes games better or improves on them. Even if Kinect would be used for something good, the system should not automatically dedicate x% of resources to it even if it is not plugged in it will eat up the resources. The sensible thing would have been to let developers dedicate resources to Kinect if they use it, but MS in their idea that everything needs to be controlled by voice at any time they compromise the gaming aspect.

@Krib

I had both PS3 and 360 and used to play the multiplatform games for a long time on the PS3 because of the shortcomings of the PS3 ports and I was not happy with the games running worse on the PS3.

I never said it was ok to pay more and get the inferior versions of games, but that is what Xbox fans basically say when they claim that resolution and frames don`t matter.

Anyway some people like to behave like all of n4g is run by Sony fanboys and only negative X1 articles are posted and nobody ever says anything bad about Playstation when the same happened the other way around last gen.

[dantesparda]

So i think Kribwalker, nicksetzer1 and ILikeGamesNotCorps are all the same person. They are all fairly new accounts. But Krib, delusional much? It is a inferior $500 system, PERIOD! end of story, FACT! sorry guy, but you cant just make up your own sh!t.

Nick its funny how everyone is a hypocrit to you yet, you're the hypocrit you is now sticking up for a more expensive and inferior product

[showtimefolks]

Kribwalker

lol who is buying these kinect 2's when every system comes with one? stop bringing that weak sauce in here

[Prime157]

@ krib's second post, "The fact of being a hypocrite saying cheaper system and better multiplatform is what mattered to you but you bought a ps3 makes you one."

If you bought an original xbox before the 360 it means you ate a hypocrite 2x to his 1x. Lol. Let's stop this stupid argument as the past is past. Maybe he was a hypocrite then, maybe not. That's just how time changes things.

I'm just sorry you let yourself get forced into buying that peripheral for $150 more than your underpowered console.

Enjoy your $150 glorified Mic for voice commands.

[tjg59]

Who will buy it on ebay when every xb1 comes with kinect?

[cell989]

The only thing you are correct about is the fact that the xbone should be sold for $349.00 without the Kinect. Because even if you take Kinect out it shouldn't cost $399.00 like people insist it should cost

[BlackTar187]

man Krib walker and Nick got to be the same person.

I want to highlight something that you guys seems to be forgetting.

1. PS3 vs X360
PS3 had Better tech better Graphics on exlcusives and some Multi Plats and more expensive. Xbox had good multi plats.

2 Ps4 vs Xbone
PS3 has better tech better graphics better Multi plat and can almost guarntee will hold the graphic crown this entire gen. And cheaper

So to summarize PS4 is better then in every single point of perceived weakness it had last gen. Where is Xbone is actually worse in the 1 field it had won(Mulitplats) and now the MP is about as even as you can get over the two

I forgot how many people called Ps3 stupid becasue it tried to be a multimedia device and a gamestation. Fast forward to now and that is what xbone people are now celebrating. What a crazy world.

[KingDadXVI]

I agree partially. The cost is the main issue here but your comparison with graphics cards is not correct. Consoles are not just graphics cards anymore and have not been for a while now.

The bottom line for MS is that they need to show that the extra $100 is for something relevant and not to just core gamers. For the core gamers they need to provide games which they seem to be doing at this point. Where they have not succeeded thus far is in showing the other stuff that will sell the console. It is only 3 months in so there is lots of time yet but they need to get a move on.

Pushing out a good streaming capability (i.e. Twitch) would be a good start. It will make the Kinect more valid in the eyes of the gamers.

That is just a start however. They need more games that use the Kinect in unique ways which I honestly think will come from the indie community and not the big developers.

They also need to be pushing the social media aspect harder if they want a broader acceptance of the console. Thus far I have seen few new apps that will utilize the console or Kinect. I am assuming that this is going to come with project Threshold and the merging of the app store for all windows devices.

They also need to push their One Guide beyond the US borders. I know that it must be a monumental nightmare dealing with different content providers and the government regulations associated with each country but if they are going to advertise that as an advantage then they better make it work.

Hopefully with Phil focusing on getting us great IP and an eventual opening of the platform to not just indie game developers but other app developers we will see great things in the coming years.

@Megaton

"These guys are a joke. Flying the flag of anti-DRM for years on PC and then appearing on stage under Microsoft's boot with the most DRM-riddled console of all time."

I hate to burst your bubble but all the developers and publishers were as much behind the Online DRM as MS was. Sony was right there too. They just happened to have the good fortune of MS being the first out of the gate with their announcement giving them the option to drop Online DRM and allow the wrath to focus on MS.

Both consoles and games still support DRM. Go out, rip, and burn a PS4 or Xbox One game and try to play it and you will find out.

[Outside_ofthe_Box]

***"I hate to burst your bubble but all the developers and publishers were as much behind the Online DRM as MS was. Sony was right there too. They just happened to have the good fortune of MS being the first out of the gate with their announcement giving them the option to drop Online DRM and allow the wrath to focus on MS."***

Nothing said here is "*fact*", I just wanted to point that out.

[BitbyDeath]

"Sony was right there too. They just happened to have the good fortune of MS being the first out of the gate with their announcement"

Incorrect.
Sony announced PS4 first on Feb 20 2013.
MS announced the Xbone on May 21 2013.

MS is alone in this debacle.

[cozomel]

"I hate to burst your bubble but all the developers and publishers were as much behind the Online DRM as MS was. Sony was right there too. They just happened to have the good fortune of MS being the first out of the gate with their announcement giving them the option to drop Online DRM and allow the wrath to focus on MS. "

This is not true, this is just what you think, what you believe, your opinion. This is not fact, So please stop spreading this FUD around like if it was true. Cuz its not.

[webeblazing]

consoles are more about the exclusives and the experience. i get that people want to go for the better gfx. but theyre still not going to have things the other console dont have. no matter what you getting, you re getting what the companys want you to have, its a closed system. if each was $500, same tech inside, and couldnt even render games at 1080p, people would still buy them and accept it. i see alot of people state like its 1080p or nothing. i seriously want to know if they launched a system like this what would you do? most of what im hearing hate pc gaming and hate options. so if these new systems launch with tech that not much of a big leap would downplay it and skip this gen like yall seem to downplay wii and wiiu, or do like always and just bow and except it.

like people said on this site say dont try to compare it to pc. they go where performance is, but having the best hardware is not everything them. i can lower settings in game. options is right on pc. big budget to indies succeed on the platform. pc gamers support their games way longer then a few months after launch, even if it a low budget game with subpar gfx. people even accept paying for mp on consoles. so paying more for less seems kinda weird on consoles when everything seems to point to preference.

consoles maker make exclusive and buy exclusives for their platform. so thats what would make me buy a console over another. theyre going to have their differences, but its all about preference. not sure i get a console this gen tho. have a thing for not paying for mp, my internet bill is almost $200, so pay that is a smack in the face, plus the nickle and diming is ridiculous, i see more of this coming. maybe towards the end of the gen, soo i guess 3-4yrs

[ginsunuva]

Well, XBO technically isn't more expensive hardware. We all know the console itself is cheaper than ps4. Kinect is $100-$150 so the combined package is more expensive.

[Prime157]

What's your point?

The way I see it is that you should be pissed that you were "forced" to buy a peripheral for $100-$150 that has only proved itself as a glorified Mic for voice commands (that have started to piss me off) rather than buying the console for the sake of console.

[arkard]

I love how everyone is forgetting that ps3 launched with a blu ray drive, making it cutting edge. For awhile you could get a ps3 cheaper than a stand alone blu ray player. But no...360 definitely had the better hardware...I mean just look at games like The Last of Us and Uncharted, really showed off the 360s true potential....oh wait thats right, wrong system.

[starchild]

It's the same thing as last generation when the PS3 cost $599 and the 360 cost $399, yet the PS3 versions of multiplatform games looked and/or performed worse.

Actually there is one important difference: Sony CLAIMED the PS3 was more powerful and it's no wonder that people were like "WTF?" when they found out that the console they paid more money for and were led to believe was more powerful actually had worse graphics on multiplats.

It makes sense why that got some attention.

Anyway, here is a quote from the interview:

"It’s a different story when a game looks bad or plays choppy but, based on my observations, it’s frequently the case of simply feeling better/worse because my hardware is better/worse than your hardware, and not how it really affects gameplay."
http://www.igameresponsibly...

Well, I feel that graphical fidelity does have an important impact on one's experience of a game, but I'm consistent about it. Graphical fidelity always matters to me and I buy all of my multiplatform games on the PC.

But I completely agree with him that when fanboys are arguing about resolution it's usually just a stupid epeen contest and a way to put down other people and their choices.

[yewles1]

"Actually there is one important difference: Sony CLAIMED the PS3 was more powerful"

Mwahahahahahahaha...

http://www.develop-online.n...
http://gimmegimmegames.com/...
http://www.videogamer.com/n...

ROFLMFAO!!!

@solar

No Star did not, and I just quoted so, how could you completely ignore that?

[solar]

@yewles1

you just proved Star's point. the hardware manufacturers lie about how powerful their products are.

and Supercharged PC.

[Prime157]

I'm sorry that this is so off topic...

But just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean they are a Sony fanboy.

On topic: I refer you to morganfell's comment below ours.

Morganfell said,
"A 360 at launch for $399 and a PS3 for $599. Now let's include the cost of 7 years of Live and 7 years of PSN. Not PS+ because we are strictly examining the cost of being able to play the other half of the game for which you paid full price and by that other half I mean Multiplayer.

Of course we could go further and look at the cost of an HDD upgrade for the PS3 versus that outrageous HDD for the 360. The fact that the launch 360s did not come with HDMI out. We could look at MS sticking it's buyers with that doorstop HD DVD versus Sony packing the de facto next gen disc standard. We could also examine the launch 360s which did not ship with built in WiFi. Sony used an industry standard USB cable for the play and charge where as MS asked you to purchase a separate proprietary cable on launch 360s. But we will not stare down the barrel at those additives.

When you total the costs, even for basic operation the PS3 was less expensive over the generation. It is deceptive to some. Many people have the "buy it now because it looks cheaper" attitude. Sleight of hand takes them in completely. I would love to see the investment strategies and portfolios of some of these individuals. These are the same people that buy from these rent to own furniture stores because the upfront price hooks them in like a barker at a sideshow.

There are some people that will attempt the absurd remark of, "Well you did not need to buy Xbox Live" Yes you did. Otherwise, so many games are completely devalued for you. You paid the same full price for the game as people that had Live now you are only able to play SP. There was not a price break for you because you only had half a game. In many cases you had less than half as what truly made the game possess any replayability or longevity was the multiplayer. "

[MysticStrummer]

"it's no wonder that people were like "WTF?" when they found out that the console they paid more money for and were led to believe was more powerful actually had worse graphics on multi plats."

Those multi plat differences were caused by the Cell being hard to work with, not lack of power, and those differences were smaller that what we're seeing now.

[NeloAnjelo]

@nicksetzer1

The PS3 was more powerful, had Bluray, built in wifi, and HDMI at launch. Plus free online.

You had to buy another Xbox for most of this with services still behind a paywall. Plus at launch the HD DVD player and wireless adapter costed more than the PS3. The Xbox was cheap to buy as just a box and an entire year early.

So your comparison doesn't stand. PS4 is cheaper and more powerful.

[Rainstorm81]

THIS..

People love to forget history....the 360 was cheaper but came with less and was less powerful than then PS3.

By the time you bought the WiFi adaptor, HD-DVD, plug and play kit and 8 years worth of XBL....u certainly paid more than 600$ and still haven't achieved Killzone or Last of Us quality....

[rainslacker]

I remember the price breakdowns that showed how the 360 was more expensive to get all the stuff that came with the PS3. The HD-DVD attachment may have been pretty optional in those comparisons though.

The a-la-carte method of selling all those "features" separate isn't really a bad thing, unless of course you actually want all that stuff. In the end, most people ended up expecting all those features.

Anyhow, I love how everyone conveniently forgets there actually was a $499 PS3 at launch. Only difference was the hard drive size, which one could upgrade on their own without buying an overprice proprietary one.

As far as power, PS3 was more powerful on paper, and it showed in later years. It did require a different way of thinking about how to put a games graphic engine together. Unfortunately, outside of Sony first party, most didn't even bother. Even most of the 3rd party exclusives didn't take great advantage of what cell has to offer.

Funnily enough though, much of what is going into x86 architecture now was built from the concepts of Cell.

[awi5951]

EVERYONE BUY THIS GAME ON GOG.COM BECAUSE ALL THE MONEY GOES DIRECTLY TO CD PROJECT AND THEY DONT HAVE TO SHARE THEIR HARD WORK WITH STEAM OR ANYONE ELSE. PLUS YOU GET A DRM FREE VERSION OF THE GAME.

[morganfell]

"I was not happy with many of the PS3 ports for multiplatform games especially not only because the console cost more compared to the 360"

I am not tossing this at you Orange, but since cost is one of the factors in the current debate and X1 supporters keep attempting (quite in vain) to draw parallels with the PS3 and the X1, let's break that down.

A 360 at launch for $399 and a PS3 for $599. Now let's include the cost of 7 years of Live and 7 years of PSN. Not PS+ because we are strictly examining the cost of being able to play the other half of the game for which you paid full price and by that other half I mean Multiplayer.

Of course we could go further and look at the cost of an HDD upgrade for the PS3 versus that outrageous HDD for the 360. The fact that the launch 360s did not come with HDMI out. We could look at MS sticking it's buyers with that doorstop HD DVD versus Sony packing the de facto next gen disc standard. We could also examine the launch 360s which did not ship with built in WiFi. Sony used an industry standard USB cable for the play and charge where as MS asked you to purchase a separate proprietary cable on launch 360s. But we will not stare down the barrel at those additives.

When you total the costs, even for basic operation the PS3 was less expensive over the generation. It is deceptive to some. Many people have the "buy it now because it looks cheaper" attitude. Sleight of hand takes them in completely. I would love to see the investment strategies and portfolios of some of these individuals. These are the same people that buy from these rent to own furniture stores because the upfront price hooks them in like a barker at a sideshow.

There are some people that will attempt the absurd remark of, "Well you did not need to buy Xbox Live" Yes you did. Otherwise, so many games are completely devalued for you. You paid the same full price for the game as people that had Live now you are only able to play SP. There was not a price break for you because you only had half a game. In many cases you had less than half as what truly made the game possess any replayability or longevity was the multiplayer.

This poor invalid attempt X1 supporters have made on cost comparison has no basis in fact. Period.

[Prime157]

I worked retail in a gamestop for almost 3 years... I forgot how much the cumulative value of the two systems angered me when one would say that 360 was cheaper.

The value in ps3 is still very much relevant to ps4... not to mention the value of ps3, ps4 and vita with ps+...

[callahan09]

With the PS3 / 360 debate, the big games I remember being used to make the "multiplats are better on 360" argument were GTA4, Red Dead Redemption, Bioshock, Call of Duty, Fallout 3, Orange Box, Bayonetta, and Resident Evil 5.

All of the COD games ran at the same resolution on both consoles except for Black Ops, which was 1040x608 (360) vs 960x544 (PS3): 21% higher resolution on 360.

The Orange Box, Fallout 3, RE5, Bayonetta, (and most other games used in the argument) were 720p native on both systems, and it was just some framerate/performance differences between the two versions, but not native resolution, that was used to make the argument.

GTAIV & RDR were 1280x720 (360) vs 1152x640 (PS3): 25% higher resolution on 360.

Bioshock ran in 680p for the PS3 and 720p for the 360, and that is just a difference of about 12% higher resolution for the 360 version.

And it wasn't universal in the favor of the 360. It was largely just a question of which was the lead platform. Final Fantasy XIII ran at a higher resolution on PS3.

For the most part, games ran at the same resolution on both systems, and in the case where it was different, games ran within 25% of the same resolution in all examples I can think of except for FFXIII & Ghostbusters, which ran at the same exact resolution discrepencies across the two systems as one another (720p vs 1024x576, only FFXIII favored PS3 while Ghostbusters favored 360 with those resolutions). That's a 56% higher resolution, and that's the highest discrepancy I can find.

A big deal was made about games that were usually the same resolution, or within about 10-25% of the same resolution...

This generation, we're getting games that run at 125% higher resolution (1080p vs 720p) at the high end and others running at 56% higher (900p vs 720p) or 44% higher (1080p vs 900p).

And we're being told now that it doesn't matter? It's ridiculous how performance difference were harped on all last generation to say the 360 does multiplats better, while those difference were a lot smaller than the differences this time, when people are saying it doesn't matter and we should ignore the differences.

[Tapewurm]

@"OrangePowerz + 20h ago | Well said

Obviously gameplay is more important then the resolution, but we wouldn't have those discussion if the more expensive hardware would have the higher resolution and framerate.

If nVidia or ATI would release a graphics card that is more expensive compared yo another card but offers less performance it wouldn't fare very well in hardware reviews."
_____________________________ ________________________

Gameplay is more important THAN the resolution, but proper grammar is more important THAN both. 8) I do agree with your post though.... Now and THEN I like to point these things out. Grammar Police out!

[OrangePowerz]

Sorry, I'm from Germany and always have my problems with then and than :D

[Tapewurm]

@OrangePowerz

Well... let me apologize then.... because I am sure (being the typical American that I am) if I were trying to type this in German that there would certainly be all kinds of errors throughout 8) (little mistakes like that are generally accepted and expected when using any language that is not your native tongue)... Please accept my apology friend. I feel like a rude American now 8(

[Megaton]

Predictable dodgy PR response. These guys are a joke. Flying the flag of anti-DRM for years on PC and then appearing on stage under Microsoft's boot with the most DRM-riddled console of all time. Now I'm sure it's going to be "graphics don't matter" because the bone can't keep up.

[EBTpickle]

I don't think the response was dodgy. They deliver some of the best visuals in the business, but gameplay is truly what matters most.

[Volkama]

When they stop giving PC players their additional content for free i'll listen to critism, but so far they're practically saints so hold your tongue!

[EBTpickle]

They'll continue to be PC first, just like the Facepunch guys. Additional free content after launch is pretty much CDPR's MO, and it's great.

[awi5951]

Yeah these guys when ever i turn on my witcher games there is always serveral gigs of downloads for me to get. I love all the free content when they sell out and start charging then i will hate on them lol.

[Fireseed]

Is it predictably dodgy because he said what a game developer would say, or is it because he's not telling you what you want to hear?

And how is the Xbox "DRM riddled?" I mean they did take it out, unless you're SO delusional that you deny facts.

[Christopher]

At the time that they were on stage, it was all about DRM, though. I think that's what he means.

Ugh, why do I even reply? I'm not sure this conversation really has any merit.

[webeblazing]

i think truthfully they just dont care. the mainly pc devs so none of the consoles is really impressing them. its more of been there done that. they only care about the games.

[ovnipc]

I want this game already. Witcher 3 looks amazing! I hope this game runs at least 900p on the one. This type of games can run 30fps stable and give a good experience. This game will be ps4 1080p/30fps xone 900p/30fps or ps4 900p/30fps xone 720p/30fps. Ps4 will always have the best resolution.

[kingduqc]

PC will always have the best resolution*

Fixed that for you.

[porkChop]

PC will always have the best resolution IF your PC has enough power to play the game in or above 1080p with a playable frame rate*

Fixed that for you.

[awi5951]

@porkChop

Dont worry my pc does and my two graphics cards cost me less than a xbox and playstation. Im so happy to be out of the stupid console wars. Hell on pc i havent been called a racist name or fag ever since i quit console gaming 2 years ago. The pc community is so much nicer and grown up.

[FITgamer]

Aren't these the same guys that said the Xbox One was easier to develop for than PS4? It'll be funny and proof of their PR BS if The Witcher 3 performs better on the PS4.

[EBTpickle]

Well, they have a proprietary engine. It's possible that the Xbox One is somehow more compatible with their in-house REDengine 3. I think the PS4 version will likely have an edge on the Xbox One version in the resolution arena. Like they say in the article; a game can only look, and play, as well as the hardware running it.

[BABY-JEDI]

My questions would be
Q1.'What resolution would you want your game to be played at?'
Q2.'how many FPS would you like your game played at?'
Q3.'why would you think people should settle for less?'

[urwifeminder]

Ha still have not finished the first two games but will most likely add this to the pc collection.

[Aquariusgamer]

Posted this on the site of the article, re-posting here:

yes, game play is more important of course, but given the choice, a REASONABLE person would still purchase the version of a game that performed the best, and so developers need to be honest and forthcoming with that information so that gamers can make an informed decision on which version to purchase.

[yewles1]

"A sentiment that any true gamer should agree with. In 2013 alone, games like Gone Home and The Stanley Parable found great success by leaving a lasting impression long after players ended their experience."

Two games on PC that can be played at high resolutions and framerates regardless of gameplay and have nothing to do with the current situation pertaining to 8th-gen consoles... you need a better point.

[webeblazing]

way to go of completely missing the point.

[yewles1]

Nope, the writer did. Games like Journey and Beyond: Two Souls already do unique things on older hardware regardless of pixels and performance, ANY new experience can be made for ANY hardware, but new hardware is for new visuals, and if these devs stating their stance were so sincere, then prove it by making a 480p or even 480i version for PS3/360/Wii U, see what happens...

[corvusmd]

Good article, I like his level-headed approach to the matter. It's not the resolution or FPS that stick in your memory when you aren't play, and it's not what makes you have fun while you are...but a good visual and smooth play contribute to the good overall feeling you get while playing. Well said sir.

[Vashv17]

I totally agree

[stuna1]

Technically the gameplay would stay the same on either platform! With one having better resolution and fps.

So in truth, talking about a multiplatfom game, it's in essence irrelevant! A good game would be a good game, and a bad game would be a bad game. The only scenario that rule could even apply to is a exclusive game.

[LAWSON72]

The problem for me is why should I pay $500 for a lower spec system that is only expensive because they want to force Kinect down everyone's throat. They need to realize they have competition and they are not dominating the market where they can just go ahead and do such a thing. Off topic hear, but I think Nintendo has the same problem. For a lot of people Xbox exclusives are something they prefer, but to sacrifice superior multiplats while paying $100 more just because of something they dont even want does not sound appealing if you got only one choice over the next few years or even the whole gen.

This is a competitive market the only way anyone is going to attract buyers is by making the best device with the best services and features at reasonable price, and sure take risks but do so in an optional way where you are not throwing an opinionated product at the consumer who does not even want it.

[Jovanian]

Any person who truly respects CDPR and the painstaking work they've done to make this game as detailed and beautiful as possible will get it on PC. Why get a sub-HD, sub-60fps inferior version on the consoles, I will experience the masterpiece as it was meant to be experienced

[Roccetarius]

Consoles are just a bonus for their game, so they can raise awareness as a developer. The PC is where the game truly shines, and i wouldn't expect any less than crisp visuals and smooth gameplay.

Now that they'll have mod tools sooner for W3, we'll see what people can do with it.

[beatled]

game is 900p on ps4 and 720p on xbox1

both crappy imo

1080p isn't even really that cool anymore, its been the standard since 2006 and ps4 and xbox1 cannot even manage that

why would anyone refer to them as "next gen"

gonna rock this game in either 1440p or on the 1600p beauty, and eventually, replay it in 4k when those come down in price

but the ps4 and xbox1 will ALWAYS be dirty 720p and 900p

[deadie]

game is 900$ with high settings and at least 720$ on medium settings - well at least on PC.

both crappy deals imo

PC isn't even really that cool anymore, its been quite the bore since 2000 and Microsoft , Intel or ASUS cannot even manage to change that.

why would anyone refer to them as "a good investment"?

gonna rock this game in either 1440p or on the 1600p beauty, and eventually, replay it in 4k when those come down in price - cuz it will be totally worth the 2000$ when i post comments about it @ N4G´s homepage.

but the PC elitists will ALWAYS be dirty - and very eager to explain how their choice is WAY better than everybody elses.

[tigertron]

In the year 2014 we shouldn't even have to discuss framerate and resolution.

[pupa]

It's very simple actually, Something that a certain group of gamers seems to miss? The gameplay is the most important we agree, but if the same game and thus by all means the same experience can be found on one or more console or PC then I will go for the best looking version with the best fps as that will add to the "same" gameplay experience! Thus for me it seems at this current moment that it will be the PS4 for all multiplats, The PS4 for the best future exclusives as we experienced in the past history, and are STILL currently experiencing, on the PS3, and then the PC for "anti" Sony "bought" exclusivity like with TitanFall which will be the best on PC anyway. Thus all that remains will be the few exclusives that will be primary on the XBone and there are not one title that interest me so much that I am willing to invest $500 for one or two titles that may interest me. It's all about choices and until M$ comes with the proof or "secret sauce" my mind are very clear on which platforms I will use as a gamer. So far the combination of PS3, PS4 and PC will give me so many titles with the best "Gameplay experience" and "quality performance",in the short and long term, there will just be no time or space for anything else unless something changes drastically. (Yes, I am looking at you M$)

[Nartzee-Ninja]

Seriously, I think 1080p makes a game look worse. Come bite my head off for saying this, but it shows up the textures and shadows too much in a way that's unrealistic.

[gamer7804]

While neither really bothers me I can see how some might like the slightly softer look

[IndoAssassin]

Lol My plastic box is better than your plastic box. I only care because I want to know which console to get a game for since I own both. I don't understand the fanboys of either console trying to pump their chests and tell me that 1080p is better than 720p or 30fps is better than 60fps. If you only own one console why do you care so much of which version of the game I buy?

You see I win in the end. I get to enjoy all the exclusive games regardless of console plus I get to play the best version of the multiplatform game.

Me 1-0 Fanboys.

Can fanboys come up with a better argument than that?

[Mikey Mike]

I could give a rat's *&^ about the Xbox I. I am not going to defend my PS4 purchase. Did I get the better system, who knows, it's too early to tell. However, Titanfall is not a system seller. I can get it for my PC. I do not see the big hoopla over all this crap. Last time I checked, both systems, as of now, have okay games, nothing to brag about.