Exactly why did Watch_Dogs have to be downgraded?

[Arnoxthe1]

For the next-gen consoles I mean. I certainly understand the Xbox 360/PS3 versions sticking to the current standard of graphics they have. But why is Watch_Dogs getting pulled down with them? I thought at LEAST the PS4 version would look like the E3 reveal. Why did they have to settle for less?

 

[Savagezion]

I am not 100% on this and I don't mean to be all "Pc master race, Hur dur." But my guess so far is that it is an illustration of rushing games to market for consoles and "inferior hardware" mixed together to create hype. It probably is terrible at managing memory which can be overcome with power pcs but not with limited console hardware, as of yet anyways. I think it is bunk, but it's the Market's call in the end. That's just my guess though, there is probably an "official statement" out there as to why.

 

[Smooth Operator]

Well the E3 reveal was no doubt running on hardware far beyond anyone's mortal pay grade, but if they did some movie magic that could have still been very close to what your average PC/PS4/Xbone can do.
So I'm just going to call it saving money flat out(after they probably went far over budget), because a simple lowest common denominator release is by far the cheapest way to go, as in if you pull the game down to 360 everything else will run the same setup.

 

[Jandau]

Honestly, what was initially shown was likely the PC version. That's it. That's all there is to it. Because let's be honest here, the "next gen" consoles are kinda underwhelming in the hardware department. So they showcased it on a badarse PC with all the bells and whistles they could put into the game. However, there was no chance in hell they'd get it to run on console hardware, especially this early in a console's lifecycle when devs simply haven't had the time to get used to the hardware and how to optimize for it. So they dialed it down to something manageable.

 

[josemlopes]

What I dont get is why they dont pull a Crysis at least on the PC. Just release the game with crazy good visuals like the ones in the demo and if most people cant run it then thats fine, someday they will. With that though there wouldnt even be all that need to lower the price of the game so much over time as the interest over the game would remain longer as people got into it.

I only ran Crysis (on High at least) well about 4-6 years after release and even now it can be demanding if you tweak around the visuals more.

 

[Ed130 The Vanguard]

Well there are three theories:

1. The next gen was under powered from what they expected. 7th gen used cutting edge tech, this one is much less powerful than the last gen was at launch.

2. It was a fake demo, a build that never actually existed in the first place and got scrapped 2 years ago after that vertical slice served its purpose. Something Ubisoft does a lot.

3. It was built as a last gen game (next gen didn't exist yet in 2012).

All of them plausible.

Take a pick from one of these and you're done folks.

We'll need to see if they really did pull a Aliens: Colonial Marines on us when the game releases, but considering it was set for launch late last year before being delayed it isn't really encouraging.

 

[gargantual]

What I dont get is why they dont pull a Crysis at least on the PC. Just release the game with crazy good visuals like the ones in the demo and if most people cant run it then thats fine, someday they will. With that though there wouldnt even be all that need to lower the price of the game so much over time as the interest over the game would remain longer as people got into it.

I only ran Crysis (on High at least) well about 4-6 years after release and even now it can be demanding if you tweak around the visuals more.

when Crysis dropped it was a different time in the VG industry. Now there's not as much wiggle room for folks buying games they can't immediately run. Specially after BF4 and Sim City. It's gotta make enough money in its release period to sustain the dev and advertisement costs. Especially when its a sandbox.

I hope its not as sparse as folks percieved Arkham origins to be. Fingers crossed.

 

[MeChaNiZ3D]

Time and money. Ain't no company wants to deliver less than they promise unless they can't.

 

[rbstewart7263]

So will this game come out for pc and will it perform to specs similar to what we saw at e3? I mean we cant assume that all that jelly got passed this way. Could be that nobody gets any jelly.lol

 

[Iwata]

I've been playing Killzone: Shadow Fall and that game's graphical quality astounds me at every turn. I'm not sold on the 'because next gen consoles can't handle graphics like we saw at the demo' any time soon.

My guess, simply rushing to meet deadlines. They've got a lot of money (and credibility) sunk into this game selling well at launch.

 

[Mersadeon]

The developers aren't experienced enough to make it look like that without pumping a load of resources into it. The trailer looked better because in a trailer, you can put a lot more power into graphics - afterall, you already know which path the player character is going to take and what he is going to do.

It's also that the next gen consoles are a bit less powerful than advertisments claim, but mostly it's the fact that almost every "gameplay trailer" is somewhat faked, and a lot of times the graphics are part of that. Unfortunately something we are accostumed to with videogames.

Honestly, NO launch title truly gets a good performance graphics-wise - it takes time and experience to get the most out of a console. Just look at the development of the PS2, PS3 and X-Box360 - the launch titles look relatively stale compared to the works that came out later in the console's life cycle.

 

[Arnoxthe1]

Honestly, what was initially shown was likely the PC version. That's it. That's all there is to it. Because let's be honest here, the "next gen" consoles are kinda underwhelming in the hardware department.

It may not be the best of the best BUT, even the Xbox One, which is considered the weakest of the two main next-gen consoles is still AT LEAST literally 5 times more powerful than the 360. Imagine what you can do with 5 times the power.

 

[Zipa]

If its downgraded its likely to be for the new gen consoles, despite all the claims of 1080p and so on they just can't do it very well, and certainly not to the standard of a gaming PC which I bet the original trailers were shown and recorded off.

 

[Jandau]

Honestly, what was initially shown was likely the PC version. That's it. That's all there is to it. Because let's be honest here, the "next gen" consoles are kinda underwhelming in the hardware department.

It may not be the best of the best BUT, even the Xbox One, which is considered the weakest of the two main next-gen consoles is still AT LEAST literally 5 times more powerful than the 360. Imagine what you can do with 5 times the power.

I don't need to imagine it - PCs have had that power years ago. Also, it's not about imagining what can be done, it's about what can actually be done. And apparently, that level of graphical fidelity isn't an option, at least not with that level of gameplay and what I assume is an open world.

Also, one should consider that just because the hardware is there doesn't mean devs know what to do with it. They simply don't know how to optimize for it. It's the same thing in EVERY console generation - games that come out later in the gen can often look much better than the early ones simply because the devs learned how to get the most out of the hardware.

Finally, it's worth noting what Jim Sterling said yesterday - the game doesn't look bad. Heck, it looks pretty good. But because it doesn't look AS GOOD as the initial reveal, everyone will say it's shit.

 

[fix-the-spade]

Why did they have to settle for less?

The E3 reveal was more than likely an entirely pre-rendered video containing no actual game play or 'in engine' footage. Reveal footage has a tendency to be like this (see Far Cry 3, Colonial Marines, Crysis 3/2, Final Fantasy 13/14, Killzone and so on).

These reveals are essentially a long advert of what the publishers wants you all to think the game will be like, whilst the developers have to work out a way to make the graphics and physics engine they have work within the hardware and budget they are getting. The new consoles are probably about as powerful as Ubisoft were expecting, but that doesn't really mean anything as when the 2012 reveal came out they won't have had anything running on a dev kit for either of them.