Cyberpunk 2077’s first major update coming in the next 10 days

kac77

2[H]4U
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
2,673

Cyberpunk 2077’s first major update coming in the next 10 days


"the developer said it made the work “more difficult for ourselves by first wanting to make the game look epic on PCs and then adjusting it to consoles — especially old-gens. That was our core assumption. And things did not look super difficult at first, while we knew the hardware gap, ultimately, time has proven that we’ve underestimated the task.”"
 

harmattan

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Feb 11, 2008
Messages
4,687
It's a shame they needed to pander to consoles with mid-range 10 year-old GPUs and CPUs. I feel CDProjekt was between a rock and a hard place: either descale and descope for PS4 and Xbox1, or disregard prior consoles and wait another six months until PS5 and XBoxX were market-saturated. I suppose the latter path was what Crytek did with Crysis and they nearly went out of business.
 

kac77

2[H]4U
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
2,673
It's a shame they needed to pander to consoles with mid-range 10 year-old GPUs and CPUs. I feel CDProjekt was between a rock and a hard place: either descale and descope for PS4 and Xbox1, or disregard prior consoles and wait another six months until PS5 and XBoxX were market-saturated. I suppose the latter path was what Crytek did with Crysis and they nearly went out of business.
The point is that this is not how you develop games. You go after the largest market. So you start with console first because they have the biggest market share by far. What most have done is focus on the consoles first. Then release the upgraded version on PC later, or you just let the console version be the PC version. That way you don't have epic disasters like this. Why they thought they could do a top down approach is beyond me since no video game is developed this way anymore and any that have tried have had releases just like this.
 

Red Falcon

[H]F Junkie
Joined
May 7, 2007
Messages
10,905
The last-gen consoles just really are at their limit, and it is going to take more than simply scaling the game graphics back - they are going to need to work at truly optimizing for those platforms, dated as they are.

The point is that this is not how you develop games. You go after the largest market. So you start with console first because they have the biggest market share by far. What most have done is focus on the consoles first. Then release the upgraded version on PC later, or you just let the console version be the PC version. That way you don't have epic disasters like this. Why they thought they could do a top down approach is beyond me since no video game is developed this way anymore and any that have tried have had releases just like this.
This is why PC gamers have complained about lousy console ports over the years - no optimization on the PC-side.
Games like Rage were a straight console port to PC, and it looked awful - texture popping, lack of graphical settings, etc. - while this is the most cost-effective way to do things, the late 2000s and early 2010s developers and publishers had a terrible habit of doing just this, and it was extremely lazy on their part (though many devs were forced to do so without choice); I do not miss those bottom-up days, nor shitty console-to-PC ports.

The problem wasn't that CD Projekt Red developed for PC first with a top-down approach, the problem was that they did not take the time, or have the time, to optimize for the last-gen consoles.
They should have taken more time to polish the game overall, but the execs wanted that Q4 2020 release date in time for the holidays, and paid the price for it.

Why they thought they could do a top down approach is beyond me since no video game is developed this way anymore and any that have tried have had releases just like this.
Half-Life 2, Doom 3, F.E.A.R., and Quake 4 all did just this in the mid-2000s, all were considered a PC-benchmark game of choice (especially F.E.A.R.) until Crysis released a few years later, and all were successful.
 

kac77

2[H]4U
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
2,673
Half-Life 2, Doom 3, F.E.A.R., and Quake 4 all did just this in the mid-2000s, all were considered a PC-benchmark game of choice (especially F.E.A.R.) until Crysis released a few years later, and all were successful.
Those are drops in the bucket compared to how many games are released. Half Life 2 was no graphic powerhouse. Doom 3 had it's console release later. Really only Crysis pushed the boundaries to the point where consoles had to be second. Out of hundreds of games from your list to now these are truly exceptions.
 
Last edited:

zamardii12

2[H]4U
Joined
Jun 6, 2014
Messages
2,953
It's a shame they needed to pander to consoles with mid-range 10 year-old GPUs and CPUs.
Well to be fair when they announced Cyberpunk 2077 with that cinematic like what over 7 years ago the PS4 and Xbox One were not 10 years old (obviously). So really I don't buy this "they shouldn't have pandered to that old tech" argument when they announced the game at the same time the last-gen consoles were at their peeks. Shoot it was announced even before the PS4 Pro and One X.
 

Red Falcon

[H]F Junkie
Joined
May 7, 2007
Messages
10,905
Those are drops in the bucket compared to how many games are released. Half Life 2 was no graphic powerhouse. Doom 3 had it's console release later. Really only Crysis pushed the boundaries to the point where consoles had to be second. Out of hundreds of games from your list to now this are truly exceptions.
Have you looked at games from 2004?
Yes, Half-Life 2 was groundbreaking and was a graphics powerhouse, as was Doom 3 which released not long after.

Hell, Half-Life 2 was one of the very first games to use DX9 - what are you even talking about with it not being a graphics powerhouse???
Just because the game doesn't look great today doesn't mean that back then it wasn't amazing for its time.

F.E.A.R. pushed the boundaries of what PC hardware could do at the time in 2005, took years to get a console port, and was the benchmark game of choice up until Crysis released in 2007.
Yep, the games I listed are exceptions - primarily to show you that a top-down approach can work and be done right, which was my point.
 
Last edited:

Red Falcon

[H]F Junkie
Joined
May 7, 2007
Messages
10,905
Well to be fair when they announced Cyberpunk 2077 with that cinematic like what over 7 years ago the PS4 and Xbox One were not 10 years old (obviously). So really I don't buy this "they shouldn't have pandered to that old tech" argument when they announced the game at the same time the last-gen consoles were at their peeks. Shoot it was announced even before the PS4 Pro and One X.
The original cinematic teaser was released a few months before the last-gen consoles even debuted.
 

vegeta535

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jul 19, 2013
Messages
5,698
The last-gen consoles just really are at their limit, and it is going to take more than simply scaling the game graphics back - they are going to need to work at truly optimizing for those platforms, dated as they are.


This is why PC gamers have complained about lousy console ports over the years - no optimization on the PC-side.
Games like Rage were a straight console port to PC, and it looked awful - texture popping, lack of graphical settings, etc. - while this is the most cost-effective way to do things, the late 2000s and early 2010s developers and publishers had a terrible habit of doing just this, and it was extremely lazy on their part (though many devs were forced to do so without choice); I do not miss those bottom-up days, nor shitty console-to-PC ports.

The problem wasn't that CD Projekt Red developed for PC first with a top-down approach, the problem was that they did not take the time, or have the time, to optimize for the last-gen consoles.
They should have taken more time to polish the game overall, but the execs wanted that Q4 2020 release date in time for the holidays, and paid the price for it.


Half-Life 2, Doom 3, F.E.A.R., and Quake 4 all did just this in the mid-2000s, all were considered a PC-benchmark game of choice (especially F.E.A.R.) until Crysis released a few years later, and all were successful.
Quake 4 really? I remember zero fanfare when that was release. Hell didn't even know it was released. I agree with the other games tho.
 

DooKey

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Apr 25, 2001
Messages
10,110
The last-gen consoles just really are at their limit, and it is going to take more than simply scaling the game graphics back - they are going to need to work at truly optimizing for those platforms, dated as they are.


This is why PC gamers have complained about lousy console ports over the years - no optimization on the PC-side.
Games like Rage were a straight console port to PC, and it looked awful - texture popping, lack of graphical settings, etc. - while this is the most cost-effective way to do things, the late 2000s and early 2010s developers and publishers had a terrible habit of doing just this, and it was extremely lazy on their part (though many devs were forced to do so without choice); I do not miss those bottom-up days, nor shitty console-to-PC ports.

snip


snip
I'm pretty sure FrgMstr still wants his money back from Rage. I know I do.
 

Armenius

Fully [H]
Joined
Jan 28, 2014
Messages
23,644
The point is that this is not how you develop games. You go after the largest market. So you start with console first because they have the biggest market share by far. What most have done is focus on the consoles first. Then release the upgraded version on PC later, or you just let the console version be the PC version. That way you don't have epic disasters like this. Why they thought they could do a top down approach is beyond me since no video game is developed this way anymore and any that have tried have had releases just like this.
60% of preorders for the game were on PC.
 

Red Falcon

[H]F Junkie
Joined
May 7, 2007
Messages
10,905
Quake 4 really? I remember zero fanfare when that was release. Hell didn't even know it was released. I agree with the other games tho.
It was overshadowed by F.E.A.R., but aside from Quake III: Arena, Quake 4 was one of the earlier games to fully utilize SMP, which allowed it to be a game benchmark for the then-new x86-64 dual-core CPUs, which were then only just emerging on the market.
 

kac77

2[H]4U
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
2,673
Have you looked at games from 2004?
Yes, Half-Life 2 was groundbreaking and was a graphics powerhouse, as was Doom 3 which released not long after.

Hell, Half-Life 2 was one of the very first games to use DX9 - what are you even talking about with it not being a graphics powerhouse???
Just because the game doesn't look great today doesn't mean that back then it wasn't amazing for its time.

F.E.A.R. pushed the boundaries of what PC hardware could do at the time in 2005, took years to get a console port, and was the benchmark game of choice up until Crysis released in 2007.
Yep, the games I listed are exceptions - primarily to show you that a top-down approach can work and be done right, which was my point.
Doom 3 was spectacular that's why I left it out. It was released for PC first but the console game didn't come out until 2005 and that was only for 1 console that was it. Had it not had an Direct X compatible chip in it that wouldn't have happened at all. Didn't say FEAR wasn't. If you think Half Like two was fine by me. Still that list is small. Really small given the total number of games that are released per year. I didn't say it was impossible. No where did I say that. But it's extremely unlikely.
 

RanceJustice

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jun 9, 2003
Messages
6,066
The point is that this is not how you develop games. You go after the largest market. So you start with console first because they have the biggest market share by far. What most have done is focus on the consoles first. Then release the upgraded version on PC later, or you just let the console version be the PC version. That way you don't have epic disasters like this. Why they thought they could do a top down approach is beyond me since no video game is developed this way anymore and any that have tried have had releases just like this.

Or they could have just developed it focusing for PC entirely, not worrying at all about consoles if consoles were not capable of handling the scope of the game as intended. Now, they could try to port later on or whatever, but if they wanted to make something so different that couldn't be done otherwise, then PC first and primary was the way to go. There are some types of games that really don't work very well on consoles at all and/or require tons of changes to support them. For instance, your game HAS to work with a controller for consoles. Now you can make it optionally available for PC etc.. but you can't launch a console title that requires the player to plug in KB/M. There's a reason that DCS World isn't available on consoles - it just isn't suited for them. Furthermore, the console manufacturers these days pretty much demand parity of features (with the exception of graphical fidelity), so it becomes working for the lowest common denominator.

Yes, I get they're a larger market. However, that doesn't mean that you need to cater to them to be successful. However, if you intend to support console parity on day 1, then you need to scale things down to work on them design-wise, rather than provide a barely working product and go through this bullshit. I don't know how much of Cyberpunk 2077's "Good, but not as mindblowing as we expected even at its best" reception is related to having to cater to consoles all along, but I grant that if they did intend it to be a parity console project, then it should have been equally (gameplay, features, playability etc) viable. One compromise as it were they could have made was what I've seen a lot of long-tail crowdfunded titles that involve consoles do - pick their consoles and evolve over time. There have been plenty of even indie titles that may have started out with plans to offer WiiU and 3DS support for instance, but by the time development continued it would be obvious that wouldn't hold up by launch and instead they focused on the Switch. With Cyberpunk, I would have probably launched for PC first and foremost, and announced it would be coming to PS5 and XBSX/S down the line, but that it wouldn't work on PS4 and XboxOne hardware (it may have in theory worked as a lowest-level product for Xbox One X and PS4 Pro , but i'm pretty sure that those manufacturers don't let you sell ONLY for that variant of the console).

If they weren't going to just make it an uncompromising PC project and then post-launch decide if porting to consoles was viable, they could have at least used the PC as primary and then know that the relatively smaller steps to make it to the PS5/XBSX+S would be easier than trying every previous generation hardware kit. Hell, I've seen games crumble just having to try to port to the bloody Switch when it wasn't planned (because its basically a whole separate, mobile-ish way of doing things vs the at least semi-PC like Xbox and Playstation consoles) so CDPR having something like 9 platforms to rush to get working likely didn't help. Still would have preferred they made an uncompromising PC title first, but there were other avenues perhaps that would have made it easier than this.
 

Red Falcon

[H]F Junkie
Joined
May 7, 2007
Messages
10,905
Doom 3 was spectacular that's why I left it out. It was released for PC first but the console game didn't come out until 2005 and that was only for 1 console that was it. Had it not had an Direct X compatible chip in it that wouldn't have happened at all. Didn't say FEAR wasn't. If you think Half Like two was fine by me. Still that list is small. Really small given the total number of games that are released per year.
ATI made their then-new GPUs fully-compliant for DX9, which was the only way to play Half-Life 2; the NVIDIA Series FX GPUs didn't even have full DX9 compliance, and couldn't play Half-Life 2 with the fullest graphical features.
Half-Life 2 was a benchmark game for its time - this isn't me saying this, it is a fact and a part of gaming and computing history, so please don't try and rewrite history on something you apparently know little about.

Doom 3 wouldn't run on the GameCube or PS2 because each console didn't have enough RAM to play the game properly - it had nothing to do with needing an NVIDIA GPU - again, what are you even talking about???
The Doom 3 console port was also graphically stripped down, and did not play all that great, so really, that parallels what we are seeing with Cyberpunk 2077 very closely on the technical-side, but without the public backlash.


First you said:
Why they thought they could do a top down approach is beyond me since no video game is developed this way anymore and any that have tried have had releases just like this.
Then you say:
I didn't say it was impossible. No where did I say that. But it's extremely unlikely.
So yes, you did basically say that it was impossible since "any that have tried have had releases just like this", which history has proven is not true.
 
Last edited:

HeadRusch

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jun 8, 2007
Messages
1,435
You can't spend 7 years making a PC-only game that has a finite story ark you can complete in a week or a long weekend and expect to make a bundle, not in 2020/2021+. They're making games like this to make tons of cash, not do a service to the PC Gamer community who, once they get done playing through the story, will immediately begin complaining about DLC or "whats the next game, Cyberpunk 2077 has been out for months already..".

Also, you're still dealing with the spectre of "easier access to Pirated copies of software than you get in the walled-garden world of Consoles".
 

M76

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 12, 2012
Messages
11,826
You can't spend 7 years making a PC-only game that has a finite story ark you can complete in a week or a long weekend and expect to make a bundle, not in 2020/2021+. They're making games like this to make tons of cash, not do a service to the PC Gamer community who, once they get done playing through the story, will immediately begin complaining about DLC or "whats the next game, Cyberpunk 2077 has been out for months already..".
Yes because console users are so timid and they never complain. Except for the first time in history it's not a bad PC port, it's a bad console port and they set the whole house on fire, they bite the hand that is giving, etc. LOL.

Also, you're still dealing with the spectre of "easier access to Pirated copies of software than you get in the walled-garden world of Consoles".
Signed: Nobody ever.
 

kac77

2[H]4U
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
2,673
ATI made their then-new GPUs fully-compliant for DX9, which was the only way to play Half-Life 2; the NVIDIA Series FX GPUs didn't even have full DX9 compliance, and couldn't play Half-Life 2 with the fullest graphical features.
Half-Life 2 was a benchmark game for its time - this isn't me saying this, it is a fact and a part of gaming and computing history, so please don't try and rewrite history on something you apparently know little about.

Doom 3 wouldn't run on the GameCube or PS2 because each console didn't have enough RAM to play the game properly - it had nothing to do with needing an NVIDIA GPU - again, what are you even talking about???
The Doom 3 console port was also graphically stripped down, and did not play all that great, so really, that parallels what we are seeing with Cyberpunk 2077 very closely on the technical-side, but without the public backlash.


First you said:

Then you say:

So yes, you did basically say that it was impossible since "any that have tried have had releases just like this", which history has proven is not true.
Dont know why you're picking a fight with me. First off please don't tell me how games were developed when I did that for 10 years. It's annoying. Second, I changed "Nvidia GPU" to Direct X because guess what the API matters quite a bit as does video memory. You're up here holding up what 4 or 5 games out of hundreds? So I guess you can argue all day that's it's routine but it's not. That's the point. It's rarely done and 2 or 3 developers out of hundreds being able to pull it off doesn't mean anything. It really doesnt. One of the three had one of the best game engine developers around. So OK die on that hill.
 

Armenius

Fully [H]
Joined
Jan 28, 2014
Messages
23,644
Doom 3 was spectacular that's why I left it out. It was released for PC first but the console game didn't come out until 2005 and that was only for 1 console that was it. Had it not had an Direct X compatible chip in it that wouldn't have happened at all. Didn't say FEAR wasn't. If you think Half Like two was fine by me. Still that list is small. Really small given the total number of games that are released per year. I didn't say it was impossible. No where did I say that. But it's extremely unlikely.
Doom 3 wasn't made for DirectX, it was made for OpenGL. Interestingly, the PlayStation 2 used an API based on OpenGL ES called PSGL, but it did not support the version 4 features used in Doom 3 in addition to the hardware simply being incapable of running the game.
 

kju1

2[H]4U
Joined
Mar 27, 2002
Messages
3,442

Cyberpunk 2077’s first major update coming in the next 10 days


"the developer said it made the work “more difficult for ourselves by first wanting to make the game look epic on PCs and then adjusting it to consoles — especially old-gens. That was our core assumption. And things did not look super difficult at first, while we knew the hardware gap, ultimately, time has proven that we’ve underestimated the task.”"

My guess is it will probably be delayed until April. Then December so they can get it right.
 

Red Falcon

[H]F Junkie
Joined
May 7, 2007
Messages
10,905
Dont know why you're picking a fight with me. First off please don't tell me how games were developed when I did that for 10 years. It's annoying. Second, I changed "Nvidia GPU" to Direct X because guess what the API matters quite a bit as does video memory. You're up here holding up what 4 or 5 games out of hundreds? So I guess you can argue all day that's it's routine but it's not. That's the point. It's rarely done and 2 or 3 developers out of hundreds being able to pull it off doesn't mean anything. It really doesnt. One of the three had one of the best game engine developers around. So OK die on that hill.
I'm not trying to pick a fight with you, and sorry if any of my posts may have come across that way - just having a discussion. :)
Ah, I didn't see your edit above, gotcha.

The reason I cherry picked those specific games was to show that developers using a top-down (PC to console) approach can work, and that it wasn't impossible, that was all.
The Half-Life 2 comment you made did make me question your logic a bit because it was such a groundbreaking game, both in game play (amazing story and characters) and graphics (first DX9 game pushing the hardware envelope) for the time, and quickly made any GPU not capable of DX9 obsolete almost overnight - thus, saying it wasn't a graphics powerhouse made little sense.
Doom 3 wasn't made for DirectX, it was made for OpenGL. Interestingly, the PlayStation 2 used an API based on OpenGL ES called PSGL, but it did not support the version 4 features used in Doom 3 in addition to the hardware simply being incapable of running the game.
I wasn't aware of the lack of feature set on the PS2 for that functionality, that is interesting.
I remember playing both Doom 3 and Quake 4 natively on Linux using OpenGL, long before Steam was ever released for Linux, and both titles always ran better in general than their DirectX Windows versions.
 

kac77

2[H]4U
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
2,673
I'm not trying to pick a fight with you, and sorry if any of my posts may have come across that way - just having a discussion. :)
Ah, I didn't see your edit above, gotcha.

The reason I cherry picked those specific games was to show that developers using a top-down (PC to console) approach can work, and that it wasn't impossible, that was all.
The Half-Life 2 comment you made did make me question your logic a bit because it was such a groundbreaking game, both in game play (amazing story and characters) and graphics (first DX9 game pushing the hardware envelope) for the time, and quickly made any GPU not capable of DX9 obsolete almost overnight - thus, saying it wasn't a graphics powerhouse made little sense.

I wasn't aware of the lack of feature set on the PS2 for that functionality, that is interesting.
I remember playing both Doom 3 and Quake 4 natively on Linux using OpenGL, long before Steam was ever released for Linux, and both titles always ran better in general than their DirectX Windows versions.
OK cool beans. Direct X 9 primarily focused on shader models which usually brought enhanced detail while using resources more efficiently. The way I was looking at it was size and scope of the maps.
 

Armenius

Fully [H]
Joined
Jan 28, 2014
Messages
23,644
I'm not trying to pick a fight with you, and sorry if any of my posts may have come across that way - just having a discussion. :)
Ah, I didn't see your edit above, gotcha.

The reason I cherry picked those specific games was to show that developers using a top-down (PC to console) approach can work, and that it wasn't impossible, that was all.
The Half-Life 2 comment you made did make me question your logic a bit because it was such a groundbreaking game, both in game play (amazing story and characters) and graphics (first DX9 game pushing the hardware envelope) for the time, and quickly made any GPU not capable of DX9 obsolete almost overnight - thus, saying it wasn't a graphics powerhouse made little sense.

I wasn't aware of the lack of feature set on the PS2 for that functionality, that is interesting.
I remember playing both Doom 3 and Quake 4 natively on Linux using OpenGL, long before Steam was ever released for Linux, and both titles always ran better in general than their DirectX Windows versions.
I guess everybody forgets that Far Cry released 8 months before Half-Life 2, fully pushing and utilizing DirectX 9 at the time. Until HL2 came along it was a similar benchmark game on PCs to F.E.A.R. among the community

id Tech 4 never ran on Direct3D on PC. The original Xbox version is the only one that ran on Direct3D, and it was made for that console including specific code paths for the NV25 in it.
 

Armenius

Fully [H]
Joined
Jan 28, 2014
Messages
23,644
And how did the release go?
We haven't seen a breakdown of the sales by platform since December 10. I imagine it has skewed further toward PC given the highly publicized issues with the console version, though.

1610655617017.png
 

kac77

2[H]4U
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
2,673
I'm not trying to pick a fight with you, and sorry if any of my posts may have come across that way - just having a discussion. :)
Ah, I didn't see your edit above, gotcha.

The reason I cherry picked those specific games was to show that developers using a top-down (PC to console) approach can work, and that it wasn't impossible, that was all.
The Half-Life 2 comment you made did make me question your logic a bit because it was such a groundbreaking game, both in game play (amazing story and characters) and graphics (first DX9 game pushing the hardware envelope) for the time, and quickly made any GPU not capable of DX9 obsolete almost overnight - thus, saying it wasn't a graphics powerhouse made little sense.

I wasn't aware of the lack of feature set on the PS2 for that functionality, that is interesting.
I remember playing both Doom 3 and Quake 4 natively on Linux using OpenGL, long before Steam was ever released for Linux, and both titles always ran better in general than their DirectX Windows versions.
The top down approach can work but you're literally talking the best of the best doing that. It's not impossible but it's not typical. When the PS3 / Xbox 360 era hit there was a major shift because the overall system bandwidth was much higher than PCs and VRAM was at least comparable. Back in the days I saw the switch to console first and it was damn near everyone and still is. While you have Cyberpunk being the #1 PC release, you have God of War, and Horizon Zero Dawn these games sold 10 and 50 million on one console alone. Doom 3? 3.5 million. Half-life 2? It reached 10 million but it took them 13 years.
 

kac77

2[H]4U
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
2,673
We haven't seen a breakdown of the sales by platform since December 10. I imagine it has skewed further toward PC given the highly publicized issues with the console version, though.

View attachment 319167
I'm willing to bet those low console numbers are the result of bad console performance. They will lose a crazy amount of sales had they not been so poor.
 

Armenius

Fully [H]
Joined
Jan 28, 2014
Messages
23,644
I'm willing to bet those low console numbers are the result of bad console performance. They will lose a crazy amount of sales had they not been so poor.
Can't really say why they are the way they are, but if I would wager a guess it is because CDPR barely showed any footage whatsoever of the game running on consoles up to release. What they did show of it was on the current gen consoles running in backward compatibility mode, and what we saw then was already sketchy.
 

Flogger23m

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 19, 2009
Messages
11,365
I'm willing to bet those low console numbers are the result of bad console performance. They will lose a crazy amount of sales had they not been so poor.

Pretty much. I'm sure the pre-order sales and first few days were fine, but generally many people would've heard how it was absolutely horrible and many probably stayed away if they were going to buy on consoles.
 
  • Like
Reactions: kac77
like this

Red Falcon

[H]F Junkie
Joined
May 7, 2007
Messages
10,905
I guess everybody forgets that Far Cry released 8 months before Half-Life 2, fully pushing and utilizing DirectX 9 at the time. Until HL2 came along it was a similar benchmark game on PCs to F.E.A.R. among the community

id Tech 4 never ran on Direct3D on PC. The original Xbox version is the only one that ran on Direct3D, and it was made for that console including specific code paths for the NV25 in it.
Damn, I forgot all about the original Far Cry, and that was another great benchmark game - good call.
It was definitely the prettiest looking game until Crysis released as well.

Hmm, if I remember right, Doom 3 used OpenGL for the graphics, and DX9 for everything outside of the graphics, but did not use Direct3D itself.
Please correct me if I'm misremembering.

The top down approach can work but you're literally talking the best of the best doing that. It's not impossible but it's not typical. When the PS3 / Xbox 360 era hit there was a major shift because the overall system bandwidth was much higher than PCs and VRAM was at least comparable. Back in the days I saw the switch to console first and it was damn near everyone and still is. While you have Cyberpunk being the #1 PC release, you have God of War, and Horizon Zero Dawn these games sold 10 and 50 million on one console alone. Doom 3? 3.5 million. Half-life 2? It reached 10 million but it took them 13 years.
That is a really good point, agreed.
What native PC games don't have in quantity, they do make up for in quality... most of the time, though I do think Cyberpunk 2077, given the devs have enough time to improve it, could be one of those top-tier games.
 
Last edited:

Dan_D

Extremely [H]
Joined
Feb 9, 2002
Messages
57,757
It's a shame they needed to pander to consoles with mid-range 10 year-old GPUs and CPUs. I feel CDProjekt was between a rock and a hard place: either descale and descope for PS4 and Xbox1, or disregard prior consoles and wait another six months until PS5 and XBoxX were market-saturated. I suppose the latter path was what Crytek did with Crysis and they nearly went out of business.

I think CDPR should have completely disregarded the last generation consoles entirely. The problem was is that preorders had been taken going back years if I am not mistaken. It was pretty clear those consoles were going to be a no go or at least, they had to be scaled back and delayed longer than the PC and next generation console versions.
 

Dan_D

Extremely [H]
Joined
Feb 9, 2002
Messages
57,757
they also need to make money...making a game PC exclusive will kill off the major revenue stream

Agreed, but its really only the previous generation consoles that were problematic. Years ago it seemed obvious those consoles were going to have to have a version of the game that was dramatically scaled back in order to work at all.
 

polonyc2

Fully [H]
Joined
Oct 25, 2004
Messages
19,565
Agreed, but its really only the previous generation consoles that were problematic. Years ago it seemed obvious those consoles were going to have to have a version of the game that was dramatically scaled back in order to work at all.

the next-gen console versions aren't expected until mid to late 2021 so who knows what troubles they are having with that port...might be another mess at release...
 

Red Falcon

[H]F Junkie
Joined
May 7, 2007
Messages
10,905
I think CDPR should have completely disregarded the last generation consoles entirely. The problem was is that preorders had been taken going back years if I am not mistaken. It was pretty clear those consoles were going to be a no go or at least, they had to be scaled back and delayed longer than the PC and next generation console versions.
They really should have, especially with what the game eventually became.
The CPUs in the last-gen consoles just aren't enough to run such a complex game without optimizing specifically for those platforms.
 
Top