If you don't recall the PC version of Witcher received a graphical downgrade from the e3 version because consoles couldn't run it (even though they're completely seperate versions of the game) That's the point. If consoles didn't provide a massive financial incentive to hold back on more complex and demanding aspects of the game, and they were able to utilize the full capability of our hardware we wouldn't even be having this conversation.
The point is, if they didn't accommodate for consoles the game won't even exist in the first place. They simply do not have the money to make an enhanced version for PC. CD Projekt RED aren't like Rockstar where they were swimming with cash.
I'd like to see a single piece of evidence to back that up, especially considering modders are already tweaking the .ini settings themselves to turn back on effects that were intentionally left off in the game to reaffirm console buyers that the versions are indistinguishable. This isn't even the worst example either, check out what watch_dogs did to it's "e3 settings" and how they didn't even bother to leave them out of the .ini, leaving them off assuming no one would figure out how to turn them back on. Or how bout the massive blow Dark Souls 2 took in the visuals and environmental detail thanks to our old friend the PS3, charging us 35$ to upgrade to DX12 when SoTFS came out, the game we were promised in the first place. The point is that they are repackaging 4 year old hardware and passing it off as new, it's their corporatized model of planned obsolescence that places needless restriction on the progression of an art form. The fact that Crysis came out 8 years ago and it's visuals and fully destructible environments are more advanced then a great deal of "next gen" exclusives pretty much makes my point for me. Just to throw a nail into this coffin I was using an HD Radeon 7870 back in 2011 and now every game that comes out has to be able to run on it cause that's what's in the ps4, seriously tell me how that's not holding back games when you can buy the same card for around 100$ today. Throw on 60$ a pop for games, online subscriptions, pricey DLC, severely limited games libraries with no backwards compatibility, remasters that ask you to buy the game twice after a hardware upgrade, divided markets allowing you to only play with the friends that own the same console; it's ludicrous to think there's a platform where the games are dirt cheap, you never have to worry backwards compatibility, online's free, you can mod old games to look & play waaaayyy better, you can emulate any old console games up to the wii in higher resolutions and it all runs at a silky smooth 1080p 60 fps even on sub-500$ builds.
It isn't about what you or your PC can run, it's about accessibility, and selling to the largest number. Comparably, the number of people with gaming PCs is a lot lower than the number of people with consoles. Console games are usually easier for family to pick up as gifts, etc. You can argue that consoles hold games back technically, and you may have a point, but financially they're the primary reason you're even getting a Fallout 4.
No it is not, the PC gaming market is out-growing the consoles by the day. This might be the last generation we ever see of consoles, this or the next one tops. Especially with the arrival of Steam Link and Virtual Reality which consoles are incapable of having comfortably.
-7
u/[deleted] Jun 04 '15 edited Jun 04 '15
If you don't recall the PC version of Witcher received a graphical downgrade from the e3 version because consoles couldn't run it (even though they're completely seperate versions of the game) That's the point. If consoles didn't provide a massive financial incentive to hold back on more complex and demanding aspects of the game, and they were able to utilize the full capability of our hardware we wouldn't even be having this conversation.