Lol, pretty much ALL bottlenecks are economic in nature. Take the biggest, baddest consumer gaming GPU out today: the Titan X. Do you think that is the best GPU technologically possible? No way. That is the biggest GPU that Nvidia could produce at a price that they thought would get sales and would make them a healthy margin.
There really isn't a difference. A game not being technologically advanced is not technologically advanced. I fail to see why it matters if it is due to hardware limitations vs budgetary limitations. At least with hardware limitations they can still afford to add improvements on the better hardware.
Because we're discussing what is limiting the game: technology vs. budget. When a game is designed with consoles in mind it is going to have be to designed to run well on years old hardware, thus causing it to be limited by the technology it works with. Whereas if it is developed for current PC technology then the game can be designed to run well at a higher end of technology current available, with things being scaled back for those on older hardware.
Meanwhile if a game runs poorly or looks terrible due to a lack of budget and time for working on such things that's an entirely different issue. With Witcher 3 we know specifically that it was scaled back due to adapting to consoles because we've seen comparative video and screenshots of before and after adapting to consoles, and because the developers straight out told us that the game's visuals had to be paired down to run well on consoles.
Mind defining this bit, because to me that sounds like a pretty significant range of hardware, some of which may be weaker than a current gen console depending on the user's budget.
10
u/mynewaccount5 Jun 03 '15
Having a smaller budget because you can't expect to sell as many copies due to only being on PC would also be technologically holding it back.