• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

NVIDIA Demonstrates Witcher 3 With Hair Works – Talks Hair Simulation, Next-Gen FleX PhysX and Turbu

The very first bit gets me..

"Level of horizon detail (essentially the draw distance had to be completely tuned down to tax the consoles less)"

It's all about the ****ing consoles.
 
Knew this was going to happen. Still bought the game, just a kick in the teeth for those wishing to turn the settings up to 11.

You never know, they might add everything and only charge extra later down the line.
 
Yet another Watchdogs saga? On the one hand I hope it is in some part though, as geeks were able to delve into the files and activate a lot of the 'missing' stuff via mods for that game.

Just hope it doesn't turn into a nerd rage fest like it did on guru3d though with the watchdogs mods. That was hilarious.
 
Tonester0011 said:
Knew this was going to happen. Still bought the game, just a kick in the teeth for those wishing to turn the settings up to 11.

You never know, they might add everything and only charge extra later down the line.
Click to expand...

Based on previous examples on Witcher 1 and 2 they might just release an Extended Edition and not charge anything for the upgrade, should they get the appropriate sales.

It wouldn't really surprise me if manpower/cash were the reason, it's not like CDPR haven't come good in that regards previously.

We need to be realistic; Witcher 3 is extremely ambitious in terms of scale compared to the previous games.
 
I don't understand why there's not a 'watchdog' type agency (like ofcom for uk communications) for GPU's, so that things can be fair.

How can AMD compete with this? Even if the 390X is x100 faster than the TitanX, it still can't support these technologies, as many of them are NVIDIA exclusive.

Surely it would be fairer if exclusive proprietary technologies such as this were not allowed, and some open source alternative had to be utilized.

I can't see AMD being able to claw back much market share at all, with more and more games having NVIDIA only features/effects, surely eventually they'll stop competing in the GPU market completely, and we'll be left with only NVIDIA?
 
Dave2150 said:
I don't understand why there's not a 'watchdog' type agency (like ofcom for uk communications) for GPU's, so that things can be fair.

How can AMD compete with this? Even if the 390X is x100 faster than the TitanX, it still can't support these technologies, as many of them are NVIDIA exclusive.

Surely it would be fairer if exclusive proprietary technologies such as this were not allowed, and some open source alternative had to be utilized.

I can't see AMD being able to claw back much market share at all, with more and more games having NVIDIA only features/effects, surely eventually they'll stop competing in the GPU market completely, and we'll be left with only NVIDIA?
Click to expand...




PhysX effects in the game seem to be done on the CPU and are not switchable so I guess they're going to run on either card but I don't know about the rest.


EDIT: Unless they've done something to gimp those on AMD setups which, knowing Nvidia's track record, might well be the case;p
 
People should not have been quick to lambast Crytek over Crysis. It was one of the last few games to really show what the PC could do as a platform. It even looks decent as a game now and that was over 8 years ago.

I wish we had another Crysis like step up in graphics for the PC again!:(
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom