Watch Dogs Looks Better on PC Than PS4/Xbox One, Says Director

[Steven Bogos]

Watch Dogs Looks Better on PC Than PS4/Xbox One, Says Director

He also confirmed the minimum required PC specifications for the game.

Watch Dogs, Ubisoft's open world "hack anything" adventure, has been on people's radar ever since the game was suddenly delayed less than a month out from its original November launch date. While we now know that the game will finally launch this spring [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/escapist-news-now/8872-Watch-Dogs-Coming-This-Spring], Watch Dogs creative director Jonathan Morin has been assuring fans that they haven't been sitting idly by all this time, and that the PC version of the game has progressed considerably further than when we last saw it at E3 2012. He said that it would feature a bunch of exclusive high-resolution effects, and also dropped the minimum system requirements PC gamers would need to play the game.

For the record, here's the finalized minimum system requirements for Watch Dogs:
IntelCore 2 Quad Q8400 2.66Ghz or AMDPhenom II X4 940 3.0Ghz
6GB RAM
1024 VRAM DirectX 11 Shader 5.0 video card
DirectX9 capable sound card
25 GB of free space

Morin said that the PC version would feature lighting effects, rain simulation, depth of field and a particle system, and while PS4 version that was demoed last week was "close" to the PC version, he admitted that the aforementioned effects will be rendered at a higher resolution on the PC, and that this difference in resolution will certainly make things prettier on the PC.

In regards to the E3 2012 trailer, Morin said that the current state of the game's PC version is "In many regards better. We did not stop working and PC never stop to evolve."

Source: DSO Gaming [https://twitter.com/Design_Cave/status/441672868569821184]

Permalink

 

[Adam Jensen_v1legacy]

"We fucked up the console version, so now we beg PC gamers to take us seriously. We love you. We really do. No, please, don't go!"

That's what I heard.

 

[Irridium]

A PC game will look better than its console versions with the settings cranked up?

I'm shocked.

 

[Isalan]

A PC game will look better than its console versions with the settings cranked up?

I'm shocked.

This^

How does this stuff even qualify as news? Of course the PC version is going to look better, the PC is a more powerful platform (unless its an older PC).

Its like those stories along the lines of "EA executive says Simcity launch wasn't a giant pile of ass and disconnects." They're going to say that. Its their job.

 

[Angelous Wang]

Well duh.

The "bullshots" after all were from a PC mock up version. Which they did actually say at E3.

It entirely possible that the PC version will look as good as E3, and it's only the console that have "downgrade" by comparison, even though it's not really a downgrade because they only ever showed the PC version and people just assumed.

 

[Zipa]

I would hope so otherwise you are doing it wrong considering how much more powerful those minimum specs are compared to either of the consoles.


I like how they list you need a sound card, what is this 2003 ? Pretty much every single motherboard built in the last 10 years has good on board sound.

 

[AndrewC]

This just in: obvious stuff is obvious.

More on this totally obvious stuff on the 'Obvious News Stuff' show at 6pm.

 

[josemlopes]

A PC game will look better than its console versions with the settings cranked up?

I'm shocked.

This^

How does this stuff even qualify as news? Of course the PC version is going to look better, the PC is a more powerful platform (unless its an older PC).

Its like those stories along the lines of "EA executive says Simcity launch wasn't a giant pile of ass and disconnects." They're going to say that. Its their job.

Rage, bro.

If all games took the power of PCs into actual consideration then every game could look how Crysis looked compared to other 2007 games. The usually do look better but only by those run of the mill features that the consoles dont prefer to have like anti-aliasing and higher texture resolution.

 

[Dominic Crossman]

Pcs have better graphics then consoles.
And in other news pigs still can't fly.

Seriously, why is this news, to most of the people who frequent this site it is extremely obvious.

And I just realised that I've been beaten to the punch.

 

[VoidWanderer]

This reminds me of those stupid news articles I have been reading lately on DailyMail.

"Scientists uncover why kettles whistle when they are boiling water."

 

[Sanunes]

"We fucked up the console version, so now we beg PC gamers to take us seriously. We love you. We really do. No, please, don't go!"

That's what I heard.

Its hard for a PC user to take them seriously either. Whenever they have a release date there is an asterisk with "The PC version will be four to eight weeks after this". I am also not a big fan of Uplay which is mandatory for all PC versions because it conflicts with Steam all the time, I still haven't finished Assassin's Creed 3 yet because my saves have been completely corrupted twice.

 

[Gitty101]

Get rid of Uplay Ubisoft, THEN we'll talk.

(And those are some pretty reasonable specs for a 'next-gen' title.)

 

[Clovus]

Yes, it is not news that the PC version will look better than the console version. The news here is the minimum PC requirements - a common type of news post. This one is a bit more interesting than your standard since the minimum here is really not so minimum.

The 6GB of RAM is interesting. There was another title (maybe CODogs) that claimed it needed more than 4GB RAM, but people quickly found out that it only used that much when it launched and that was later fixed. If not, this might be the first game in a very long time that might require a small upgrade since I've just had 4GB for several years. That's never really seemed to be a problem in any game I've played for several years, especially since my video card has 2GB VRAM*. So, there should be plenty of RAM for textures. Anyone have any idea why they need more memory than Crysis? Oh well, a quick memory upgrade should see me through a few more years before a complete overhaul.


* I'm pretty sure I'm dong PC gaming wrong. From all the PC vs Console rants I've seen, you have to upgrade your PC several times a year. Also, I spend almost zero time on "drivers, patches, and settings". That's apparently a big problem too.

 

[ShakerSilver]

I just hope it doesn't suffer from Ubisofts terrible optimization of PC versions. Maybe that's why it needs 6GB of RAM and has a 25GB install size.

From all the PC vs Console rants I've seen, you have to upgrade your PC several times a year. Also, I spend almost zero time on "drivers, patches, and settings". That's apparently a big problem too.

While driver updates are a pretty big thing on PCs, upgrading every year is a gross over-exaggeration. A good, cheap CPU - like an intel i5 or AMD FX 6300 - and 8 GB of ram will last someone throughout the entire gen. The only part that would need to updated regularly would be the graphics card, but considering that AMD is already developing a GPU that matches the current-gen consoles in terms of power for budget builds, getting a PC to outperform the best consoles on the market won't set you back all that much.

 

[Caliostro]

Am I falling behind again or are those some rather beefy specs for "minimum specs"? i.e.: the absolute minimum a computer should have to be able to play the game.

 

[Trishbot]

When are people going to start bringing up that Dark Souls II is a significant downgrade from the trailers and demo too? Or because it's Dark Souls, does it get a pass?

 

[TelHybrid]

Well so it should. Consoles are underpowered outdated devices from the moment they're launched. The Xbone can only just do 720p for christ sake. The PC version should ALWAYS be superior in terms of utilising hardware effectively for visuals, physics, AI, hitboxes, etc.

 

[Ferisar]

When are people going to start bringing up that Dark Souls II is a significant downgrade from the trailers and demo too? Or because it's Dark Souls, does it get a pass?

I didn't know graphical fidelity was a draw in the Souls franchise This game was being advertised and presented with a large focus on appearances. It's hard to give that a free pass, although it should've been expected.

Am I falling behind again or are those some rather beefy specs for "minimum specs"? i.e.: the absolute minimum a computer should have to be able to play the game.

Despite the "lol PC is better" commentary, I imagine the general "next/current" gen step-up means that the OBVIOUSLY SUPERIOR PC version will have to have set the bar higher as well. This is probably the result of that. End of the day, console market sets the fidelity marker for PC visuals for most multi-platform releases.

... But yeah if I didn't upgrade recently I wouldn't be able to run this game.

 

[Rack]

I'm sure it will look better if you have a top of the line i7 and a 670, but if you're slumming it on a q8400 6gb ram and a 460 it will look worse than the PS3 version.