'The Witcher 3' is still down for Xbox One gamers

Bought this game for the kid and got this same problem the other day. Very disgusted in what Microsoft and the others have done with console gaming. We used to purchase a game, bring it home, pop it in and play it. Now consumers are forced to pay double the amount for defective computers that won't necessarily play the software that was intended for it without numerous updates to the incapable console, and this is a repeat pattern with all the System updates and day one patches. Definitely the last generation of consoles I intend on buying.

Originally posted by Menion:

---

Bought this game for the kid and got this same problem the other day. Very disgusted in what Microsoft and the others have done with console gaming. We used to purchase a game, bring it home, pop it in and play it. Now consumers are forced to pay double the amount for defective computers that won't necessarily play the software that was intended for it without numerous updates to the incapable console, and this is a repeat pattern with all the System updates and day one patches. Definitely the last generation of consoles I intend on buying.

---

You are spot on in your criticism; there is no excuse for a console game to not work right "out of the box". On PCs, patches are a sad reality due to the thousands of differing configurations, but the consoles are all alike. Maybe I missed something in this article...how is this even possible? Did they not complete testing through XBL before releasing? This is extreme negligence the developer's part.

The key to happiness in modern gaming: WAIT. Wait a month or two...let the people who paid $60 for the game deal with it refusing to start, crashing, corrupting saves, etc...and by the time all of this is fixed, the game will be $40 or less...and if it has some kind of terrible DRM you can refuse to buy it, or you can pay for it and then install a warez version that works better. You might even be able to play the first DLC at the same time as the main game instead of spending a couple months playing other games and then going back to a game that you have half-forgotten how to play. Somehow we got into a situation where launches are essentially early beta releases full of problems that you pay an extra $20 for, where DRM seems specifically designed to push people towards warez versions, and where everything is so dependent on so few servers that it is faster to download the game by torrent than from the official store, at least for the first few days. I'm really looking forward to having xbox support in Windows 10...it won't fix all these issues, but at least I won't be forced to buy a console that is far less capable than my PC so that I can play the newest games with the graphics locked to the lowest settings.

Originally posted by DarthMopar:

---

Originally posted by Menion:

---

Bought this game for the kid and got this same problem the other day. Very disgusted in what Microsoft and the others have done with console gaming. We used to purchase a game, bring it home, pop it in and play it. Now consumers are forced to pay double the amount for defective computers that won't necessarily play the software that was intended for it without numerous updates to the incapable console, and this is a repeat pattern with all the System updates and day one patches. Definitely the last generation of consoles I intend on buying.

---

You are spot on in your criticism; there is no excuse for a console game to not work right "out of the box". On PCs, patches are a sad reality due to the thousands of differing configurations, but the consoles are all alike. Maybe I missed something in this article...how is this even possible? Did they not complete testing through XBL before releasing? This is extreme negligence the developer's part.

---

The PC version has been flawless since day one. aside from Nvidia being douche bags with gameworks. there has been zero game breaking problems.

Originally posted by DXR88:

---

Originally posted by DarthMopar:

---

Originally posted by Menion:

---

Bought this game for the kid and got this same problem the other day. Very disgusted in what Microsoft and the others have done with console gaming. We used to purchase a game, bring it home, pop it in and play it. Now consumers are forced to pay double the amount for defective computers that won't necessarily play the software that was intended for it without numerous updates to the incapable console, and this is a repeat pattern with all the System updates and day one patches. Definitely the last generation of consoles I intend on buying.

---

You are spot on in your criticism; there is no excuse for a console game to not work right "out of the box". On PCs, patches are a sad reality due to the thousands of differing configurations, but the consoles are all alike. Maybe I missed something in this article...how is this even possible? Did they not complete testing through XBL before releasing? This is extreme negligence the developer's part.

---

The PC version has been flawless since day one. aside from Nvidia being douche bags with gameworks. there has been zero game breaking problems.

---

Yep, more or less flawless. Just a few minor issues but nothing that's affected gameplay. Plus, got it new for $36.

Ouch, this game got 20/20 from Good Game too.

Originally posted by DXR88:

---

The PC version has been flawless since day one. aside from Nvidia being douche bags with gameworks. there has been zero game breaking problems.

---

Yeah, how is that, is the game meant to be optimised for nVidia gfx?




_______________________________________________________

Originally posted by Jemborg:

---

Yeah, how is that, is the game meant to be optimised for nVidia gfx?

---

Considering that nVidia accounts for about 75% of the graphics cards being sold, it would certainly make sense to optimize a game for nVidia.

Originally posted by KillerBug:

---

Originally posted by Jemborg:

---

Yeah, how is that, is the game meant to be optimised for nVidia gfx?

---

Considering that nVidia accounts for about 75% of the graphics cards being sold, it would certainly make sense to optimize a game for nVidia.

---

sure, if you believe BS numbers.

its not just that, the game even ran like crap on the 700 series's and Nvidia themselves said it was intentional. its not optimizing for anything its breaking your own code to sell hardware.

Gameworks is harkening back to the good old physics days.

Originally posted by KillerBug:

---

Originally posted by Jemborg:

---

Yeah, how is that, is the game meant to be optimised for nVidia gfx?

---

Considering that nVidia accounts for about 75% of the graphics cards being sold, it would certainly make sense to optimize a game for nVidia.

---

It might not make sense for the (new) console versions for sure.

But I think AMD do better than you think... I believe people are often drawn to them because today, for gaming, a decent multicore AMD cpu is as good as Intel. So when buying an AMD cpu a customer might consider looking at their gfx too, where nVidia might indeed be best... but only at the most expensive end.

A consideration for Sony and MS (maybe Ninty)?

Besides, both AMD and nVidia fork out cash/favours for games to be optimized for them. For instance, the last Bioshock:Infinite is optimised for Radeon.

Besides besides, you might be better off with Radeon if what Dex says is true about nVidia hobbling code.


Fuggit, have both: amd and nvidia in same system

Originally posted by DXR88:

---

Originally posted by KillerBug:

---

Originally posted by Jemborg:

---

Yeah, how is that, is the game meant to be optimised for nVidia gfx?

---

Considering that nVidia accounts for about 75% of the graphics cards being sold, it would certainly make sense to optimize a game for nVidia.

---

sure, if you believe BS numbers.

its not just that, the game even ran like crap on the 700 series's and Nvidia themselves said it was intentional. its not optimizing for anything its breaking your own code to sell hardware.

Gameworks is harkening back to the good old physics days.

---

Yes, I believe numbers...that kind of disparity isn't a fluke. I have personally seen the game run well on a GTX 760, but it is an old chip and you really shouldn't expect it to run as well as the latest chips, not even the latest semi-budget chips. Hairworks works...it even works on chips it wasn't designed for...it just needs to do a lot of tessellation, and some combination of AMD drivers or AMD cores make that a slow process. Think of it as a feature designed for higher-end vNidia and top-end ATI if it suits you. Would I rather see open source? Yeah, sure...but nVidia isn't stopping that, nor are they obligated to contribute. They have never tried to shut down github, nor do developers need to use any outside code to begin with. AMD could provide such code for their devices (open source or closed)...they don't. AMD could get together with developers to optimize drivers in advance of game releases just like nVidia too...but they don't do that either. Is it cheating for nVidia to do so, while specifically allowing developers in such deals to do the same with AMD? It is easy to blame the big guy for being big.

Originally posted by KillerBug:

---

Originally posted by DXR88:

---

Originally posted by KillerBug:

---

Originally posted by Jemborg:

---

Yeah, how is that, is the game meant to be optimised for nVidia gfx?

---

Considering that nVidia accounts for about 75% of the graphics cards being sold, it would certainly make sense to optimize a game for nVidia.

---

sure, if you believe BS numbers.

its not just that, the game even ran like crap on the 700 series's and Nvidia themselves said it was intentional. its not optimizing for anything its breaking your own code to sell hardware.

Gameworks is harkening back to the good old physics days.

---

Yes, I believe numbers...that kind of disparity isn't a fluke. I have personally seen the game run well on a GTX 760, but it is an old chip and you really shouldn't expect it to run as well as the latest chips, not even the latest semi-budget chips. Hairworks works...it even works on chips it wasn't designed for...it just needs to do a lot of tessellation, and some combination of AMD drivers or AMD cores make that a slow process. Think of it as a feature designed for higher-end vNidia and top-end ATI if it suits you. Would I rather see open source? Yeah, sure...but nVidia isn't stopping that, nor are they obligated to contribute. They have never tried to shut down github, nor do developers need to use any outside code to begin with. AMD could provide such code for their devices (open source or closed)...they don't. AMD could get together with developers to optimize drivers in advance of game releases just like nVidia too...but they don't do that either. Is it cheating for nVidia to do so, while specifically allowing developers in such deals to do the same with AMD? It is easy to blame the big guy for being big.

---

I have a pair of 290x, and every gameworks based game I've tried runs like crap. Coincidence? not likely. Don't develop framework tools if there going to run like shit on everybody else hardware, its that simple.

on the topic of AMD not sharing there technical expertise. DirectX 12. allowing everybody to use mantle optimizations what were they thinking.

as for market share, i don't count budget chips which make up the bulk of that market share. Nobody is coming out saying how awesome there GTX 740 is because it beats intel integrated by 7 frames.