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

[William Dickbringer]

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.

well considering how they were under fire last week for how it didn't look as good as e3 demo this is probably to give people a piece of mind although I am gonna wait till the game comes out and listen to reviews before I buy

 

[shintakie10]

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

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

Those are minimum specs. Minimum. 6GB Ram is the minimum.

-_-

Here I thought my 8gb was gonna put me way ahead for a least a few years.

Worst thing about PC's is how quickly the bar gets raised.

Quickly? I mean, the bar goes up sure, but quickly isn't remotely the word I'm thinkin of when that happens.

Aside from that, memory is the cheapest thing you can add to a system. 8 gigs of ram is less than a hundred bucks and most motherboards have more than enough slots for extra ram.

 

[Dragonbums]

Frankly sir, that just sounds like an ignorant hate speech.

This constitutes as hate speech?

Also ma'am.

First off, if you are playing on console I can guarantee you that my Skyrim looks a lot better than your Skyrim and the same goes for a lot of other games also (I just like to use Skyrim as an example).

I don't play the Elder Scrolls on a console. I play it on the PC, because when Bethesda makes console ports their quality is on par with the average Wii shovel ware game. See the PS3 Skyrim port for comparison.

And on that note, no my Skyrim did not look all that hot on my computer. It could only handle the lowest graphical setting and anything more than that is pushing it. Is my laptop $400.00? Heck no. At the time it was bought it costed a pretty good amount of money.

Was it a crap laptop. Nope. It did things very well for what I wanted it to do. Games just weren't on the forefront.

Secondly yes we are not talking about a $400 machine they try to sell you at lets say best buy. But you certainly do not need to spend $1k+ on a machine to be able to run games better than a console. If you know what you are looking for you can a machine that will match the performace of an Xbone for about the same price as it and even going as far up as $600-700 you can get a machine that can easily beat both of them.

What most people are looking for (and that is the majority of the PC crowd) is at most a computer that works and works well. Not gaming computers. Why do you think Alienware, for all the whining about how shit they really are are still in business? Because most people don't want to put up with the techjargon that comes with making custom built PC's. For me, if it works I'm playing it. I could care less about how real the leather looks on that lady's armor. Those people make up a pretty good majority of the PC playing crowd, and everytime I bring this up it is the same set of responses.

"You just have to know what to look for"

"I can get a cheap computer with superior power (but you need to know the ins and outs of a computer first)"

That's far too much hassle for me to even begin to care about.

 

[TomWiley]

Director's aren't usually honest about the PC versions massive advantages, so kudos I guess.

 

[Vrach]

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.

And while normally I'd agree with you that assuming is not a great idea, when you announce a game as a PS4 launch title (which it was at that point), you're expecting footage to at the very least be close to what you're looking at.

OT: So the story trailer was actual gameplay on the PS4? Jeez, that's awful, I was holding out hope for all those PS4 gamers that the marketing team just got some crappy shots. Well, I'm upgrading my PC when this thing arrives anyway... it's time to anyway and this is the first game that's coming that's gonna be a little more demanding and hopefully prettier for it (though it's the gameplay that excites me, graphics are just a neat plus).

 

[KingsGambit_v1legacy]

I don't know what to think. Misleading marketing aside, the game looks interesting and I'll be glad for a spangly PC version. But I've learned first-hand the dangers of pre-ordering too many times and honestly don't want to justify Ubi's "bullshot" marketing by paying full price for this. I think I will wait for it to go on sale, preferably with all it's potential DLC packs included. It also means I can read reviews and make sure important things like changing FoV is possible.

 

[Clovus]

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.

Oh, I was just joking. Driver updates are pretty much automated now. Unless you are buying a game day 1 and want to fiddle with beta drivers to squeeze in a few extra FPS. I'm going to hold on until the end of next year for next major upgrade. I buy games several months after release for the deals, so I don't think I'll have any problems. By then the "next-gen" console performance will be pretty much maxed so I'll build something to keep everything on High settings for the rest of the generation.

I don't believe that, I have been using the same PC since 2007/2008 and the only thing I have had to replace was my mouse and a hard drive. I might have to upgrade to a new video card in the near future so I can play games at a better quality, but then I should be fine until the next generation of consoles (aside from parts dying).

As far as "drivers, patches, and settings" I really don't spend any time on that either, Windows handles most of the patching it just gets frustrating when I want to turn off my computer and it takes 10min because there was 14 patches that Tuesday. The other drivers I have besides my video card are never updated with with "nVidia Experience" its like updating Windows, it will download the update in the background and I just have to install it.

I find the people that talk about frequent updates about PC either a) assume that when new hardware is released they must buy the bleeding edge hardware or b) has a person they talk to about PC hardware and that person makes them think they need to update that hardware. Now years upon years ago before DirectX it was a problem having to buy a new video card for a game, but now its not an issue.

Sorry I wasn't clearer about the joke. The idea that PC's are expensive, need constant upgrades, or that patches are somehow difficult is just nonsense.

What is this?

Is this supposed to be mindblowing? Or is he just once again touting the 'PC is superior' motto because as we all know, no game looks better on PC.

And when we say PC we don't mean the ones that the majority of PC consumers by at the store for $400.00. We mean the PCs, that can cost upwards of $1-2k that deals with more techno jargonbabble than the average consumer would even care to know about and requires a fuck ton of RAM or god help you in running your game.

Huh? You can build a PC to play this game with high settings for like $500 - $700. Why would a $1-2k computer need a "ton of RAM" to run a game? You don't need more RAM if you buy more expensive parts. I'm pretty sure 8GB will handle just about anything today. I guess some people go for 16GB (is that a ton?) so that they can edit movies while playing modded Skyrim or something crazy.

This is just a minimum specs story that also mentions consoles since you'd have hoped the "next-gen" consoles would have faired well against a normal gaming PC out of the gate. It's newsworthy when a developer admits this too. It seemed like previous generations closed the gap much closer than this one. These really are underpowered machines for a product that's supposed to have an 8+ year long life span.

 

[Cerebrawl]

* 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.

I don't believe that, I have been using the same PC since 2007/2008 and the only thing I have had to replace was my mouse and a hard drive. I might have to upgrade to a new video card in the near future so I can play games at a better quality, but then I should be fine until the next generation of consoles (aside from parts dying).

I had to upgrade from my 2008 PC at the start of 2013, indeed I had to upgrade my graphics card at the end of 2012. It wasn't even a performance issue, it was "hah, you need newer directX support", IE: my GeForce 8800 GTS couldn't handle Dx 11. And by 2013 I was getting "you need windows 7 64 bit to run this game"(well I think it accepted vista 64 bit, but XP was no longer supported).

I'm not even talking about massive performance hogs, even games like XCOM were sporting these requirements. Heck Bastion wouldn't play because I only had 320MB VRAM.

But yeah you can usually manage 4-5 years between PC builds and still play all the new games, if you don't mind going low/medium graphics towards the end.

 

[Darkbladex96]

Funny thing is I rebuild, and upgrade my rig constantly (maybe every year or 6 months), but I don't play PC games. I just like tech. If I were to get Watch Dogs, I doubt I would have a problem running it.

 

[Amir Kondori]

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

I'm shocked.

The fact that anyone attached to the project would publicly admit such a thing really is shocking though.

 

[JayRPG]

"You just have to know what to look for"

"I can get a cheap computer with superior power (but you need to know the ins and outs of a computer first)"

That's far too much hassle for me to even begin to care about.

There are almost no ins and outs anymore.

Putting together a computer is far easier than putting together a bedside table from IKEA.

I taught my brother in-law, who had barely even used a PC at all, how to find what he needed, select the right components and build a computer in less than a week and since then he has put together 3 separate builds that I couldn't fault him on if I tried.

I openly tell people the hardest part about putting a computer together is the I/O panel (the power and reset buttons in non "technogarble") which is nothing more than plugging in a few cables to their corresponding locations on the motherboard.

There is nothing wrong with buying pre-made from some places, you are just openly paying a lot more than what you could be paying if you watched a 30 minute youtube video and googled for a further 30 minutes (or even easier than that.. make a post on a forum and the community will pick your parts for you, no googling required.)

 

[Hawk of the Plain]

1) How does it sound like hate speech?, is this how gamers dictate what they don't like to hear from people who differ from you?.

2) No you're claiming ignorance when you can't simple check to notice he is not a guy but a girl if you'd taken 3 seconds of your time you'd have noticed that, thank you for pointing out your own ignorance.

3) this is obvious backtracking from ubisoft, look at the PC gamers that actually care because it shows graphics apparently only matter from this game, nope no gameplay just pure and simple graphics (btw I game on PC just in case you decide to declare heresy because I'm on the other side of the opinion spectrum).

1)The statement "because as we all know, no game looks better on PC." is provably false. Yet it is a statement that seems to pop up a lot from people attempting to make consoles sound better than they are. Many games look better on PC out of the box, and many of those that don't, hi-res texture packs are available from either the dev or modders that make them look better.

Now let me be clear, I have no problem with consoles or the people who use them. Consoles have their place and plenty of people have good reasons to prefer them to PCs. What I do have an issue with is the spreading of false information like this.

2) hardly relevant, fine I use the wrong word to address her, but gender is not relevant to the topic at hand and I don't make a habit of stalking peoples profiles.

3) Granted this is damage control from ubisoft, but I have seen no-one making the argument that graphics are more important than gameplay. I am a strong believer in gameplay and good game mechanics being more important than graphics. But just because gameplay is more important, does not mean that graphics quality are not also important in a lot of games (just less so).

Infact I suspect that people would not really care about the game looking worse than the 2012 E3 trailer in first place if they were not already interested in the game for the game play mechanics that they have seen.

Graphics quality is games Is still worth improving upon and discussing even though it does not need to be the main focus.

What most people are looking for (and that is the majority of the PC crowd) is at most a computer that works and works well. Not gaming computers. Why do you think Alienware, for all the whining about how shit they really are are still in business? Because most people don't want to put up with the techjargon that comes with making custom built PC's. For me, if it works I'm playing it. I could care less about how real the leather looks on that lady's armor. Those people make up a pretty good majority of the PC playing crowd, and everytime I bring this up it is the same set of responses.

"You just have to know what to look for"

"I can get a cheap computer with superior power (but you need to know the ins and outs of a computer first)"

That's far too much hassle for me to even begin to care about.

Okay, do you need to know more about the subject than the average person buying a PC from best buy? yes. Do you need to know a lot more than them? no. Do you need to know how to build a computer to get a decent machine for the price? it helps, but no.

It just takes a little research and a little restraint not to run out and buy the first one you see that you can afford. it really doesn't take a lot of effort find on online retailer like NCIX or even cyber power that will build and ship a PC that will be a lot better value than what most brick and mortar retailers will try to sell you.

Anyone buying a PC specificity for gaming, that is not willing to put that small amount of effort in is asking to get ripped off. And it really is not a lot of effort to ask of someone.

Now. you mentioned people not willing to deal with a little "techjargon" That is the kind of person that probably prefer to buy a console than a PC for gaming anyway.

And laptops are all well and good, but for the mobility you gain, you do lose a good chunk of the price to performance ratio. Due to this I generally don't expect most low to mid range laptops to keep up with the latest games for more than a few years.

 

[IamLEAM1983]

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

I'm shocked.

Good Lord, how can this be?!

Jokes aside, I'm not surprised. My PC couldn't handle Watch_Dogs even if I sacrificed my firstborn to the Gods of the Abyss, so I'll either shell out for one of the last-gen versions or sit quietly in the rinks, waiting for moolah to pile up.

 

[Lightknight]

At least I'll finally have a game to use more than 4GB of my 16GBs of RAM.

 

[Shadow-Phoenix]

At least I'll finally have a game to use more than 4GB of my 16GBs of RAM.

And all of my RAM meaning I won't be playing this game, not until a new rig is built at least, which could take up to a year sadly.

 

[Seracen]

"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.

As assinine as this news is, this is precisely why I will still likely get it on PS4. Don't care to deal with all the online saves and DRM of the PC release (most likely). So long as the graphical dip isn't too heavy (ie textures and weather still hold up, even if not at full 1080p), I will accept it.

Still, this is simply more proof of the redundancy of ANY of the current consoles. They just released, and developers are already hampered, hitting the ceiling of the hardware's power. It's disheartening...

 

[DrOswald]

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

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

Those are minimum specs. Minimum. 6GB Ram is the minimum.

-_-

Here I thought my 8gb was gonna put me way ahead for a least a few years.

Worst thing about PC's is how quickly the bar gets raised.

These are completely reasonable specs because these basically match the console specs. I built a $800 pc 4 and a half years ago (plus $100 in upgrades over these years) and it still exceeds the recommended specs for this game, if only barely. I have been running 12 gb that entire time. I wouldn't exactly call these minimum specs raising the bar quickly. It is certainly a massive jump from last years typical minimum, but that is because software has finally caught up to 4 year old mid grade tech.

 

[oldtaku]

A lot of commenters seem to be forgetting that at previous console launches it was a given that the consoles would have better graphics than the PCs of the time. We used to drool over SNES graphics. Remember the PS3 launch which was going to kill PC gaming because it was such a supercomputer (lol) that the PC just couldn't compete any more? Of course saner people pointed out that Nvidia cards would soon (or already had) surpassed it in sheer graphics power and any CPU differences wouldn't take long to surpass, and sure enough.

So you could argue either way (and people did, endlessly, for a while), but at least it was arguable. Raid may have been a totally crap game, but you weren't going to find anything looking like that on the PC at the time.

Now, even as fantastic as Last of Us looks, we know it would look better on PC. But it's only because the PS3 has a been a resolution, pipeline, and memory constrained millstone around the neck of devs for an unprecedented 7 years that we now just assume that 'of course the PC version will look better.'

 

[SnowWookie]

And on that note, no my Skyrim did not look all that hot on my computer. It could only handle the lowest graphical setting and anything more than that is pushing it. Is my laptop $400.00? Heck no. At the time it was bought it costed a pretty good amount of money.

Was it a crap laptop. Nope. It did things very well for what I wanted it to do. Games just weren't on the forefront.

First, laptop != desktop. If you buy a mid spec desktop (~$500), you need around twice as much on an equivalent laptop. Even if you spent an unholy amount of money on gods own laptop, it would still have a shitty mobile GPU that any decent desktop would easily surpass.
Ya know, the same way a smartphone isn't as powerful as a console?

Second "at the time it was bought". So when was that? You can't compare a laptop you bought 3 or 4 years ago to... well, pretty much anything to be honest.