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

 Pages 1 2 3 NEXT
 

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

WatchDogs

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, 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: Twitter, via DSO Gaming

Permalink

"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.

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

I'm shocked.

Irridium:
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 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.

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.

This just in: obvious stuff is obvious.

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

Isalan:

Irridium:
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.

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.

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."

Adam Jensen:
"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.

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

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

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 COD:Dogs) 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.

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.

Clovus:
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.

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.

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

I'm shocked.

This is the kind of placating, durdling, non committal comment that deflates my sense of hope. It is looking like we won't see the kind of effects or graphical fidelity demoed at E3 2012 and i think that is a real shame. Is higher resolution really the only definite thing that can be talked about? The quality seen in the footage is nowhere near what we were shown two years ago and nowhere near the quality that has been used as a basis for most of the hype and promotion.

If the PC version looks "Close" to the new footage then the straw we are still clinging to that the PC version could live up to the empty hype we have been fed is rapidly fading.

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?

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.

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?

I didn't know graphical fidelity was a draw in the Souls franchise :P 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.

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.

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.

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.

Well it better, because so far people have been pretty underwhelmed with the appearance of the console version. I can't help but think this is some kind of last ditch effort to restore some hope.

Clovus:
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'm the same, i rarely update drivers. i only tinker with settings because i'm OCD like that, most recent games could be left at the preset mediums with no game play issues.
Only thing i have to tinker with is old games to get them running.
I remember at one point it felt like my PS3 needed a system update every time I switched it on

I've a 7770 HD 1GB GDDR3, thing it will survive the first wave of "next gen" ports. anyone know what the equivalent card is to match the new consoles? I've heard R9 270 should do it.

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.

I doubt it, seeing as the 460 is about 4x faster haha. The question is, really, what the PS3/360 versions are going to look like when the PC version obviously isn't even allowed to scale down that far (the minimum specs are basically my PC I had circa 2009, which compared to last gen consoles was a complete beast).

Mr Ink 5000:

Clovus:
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'm the same, i rarely update drivers. i only tinker with settings because i'm OCD like that, most recent games could be left at the preset mediums with no game play issues.
Only thing i have to tinker with is old games to get them running.
I remember at one point it felt like my PS3 needed a system update every time I switched it on

I've a 7770 HD 1GB GDDR3, thing it will survive the first wave of "next gen" ports. anyone know what the equivalent card is to match the new consoles? I've heard R9 270 should do it.

Ya, the R9 270 surpasses both consoles (from console performance in the first wave of games, it's very obvious the APU design hurts the GPU performance anyway, so whilst the PS4 should roughly match an R9 270, it falls behind by quite a margin). May be worth just waiting until the next GPU generation in the summer/autumn (for GTX8xx and probably Rx 3xx too), seeing as it's not like many demanding games are coming out before that happens.

TheComfyChair:

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.

I doubt it, seeing as the 460 is about 4x faster haha.

If that were the case then the 460 would be recommended spec. PC developers are capable of almost superhumanly poor optimisation when the mood strikes them, getting a PS3 game to run like crap with 6gb ram and a 460 is childs play to them.

Console games that also have previous generation cousins typically do poorer than PC versions. Lots of split effort between all the porting whereas the PC version has only the one. Also, PC versions allow for a lot of scaling up of graphics if you have the resources which can always be improved if you're willing to spend the money.

Still, under the hood this is likely to all be 7th generation game engine unless they actually created two engines for the game.

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.

It's like this site is trying to annoy me now. Every news article seems to be "Probelms with console versions" or "PC still better than console LOL".

I won't buy it straight away for my PS4 as I'm saving for Infamous but I understand that its gonna look better on a PC. I just don't need to be constantly reminded how 'terribad' my console is.

Clovus:

* 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).

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.

Gitty101:
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.

I highly doubt this game will pre-cache 6 GB worth of game data in order to -actually- need that much in the minimum specs.

If it does than... well... damn. Maybe I need to upgrade. 8 GB suddenly doesn't seem so 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.

I would say you are falling a bit behind. The Core2Quad isn't exactly new, and 8gb of ram is pretty much the new standard with many, many DIYers using 16gb. You could probably get the game to run on weaker specs, but your experience will probably be shit. I would not call those minimum specs unreasonable.

Dragonbums:
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.

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

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.

Krantos:

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.

The bar only raised this sharply due to Devs having 8GB to play with on the consoles now as opposed to the 512MB they had to cram everything into on last gen consoles, I wouldn't expect games to require more than 6-8GB any time soon.

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.

Didn't we say that about Far Cry 3?

Angelous Wang:

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

Which they claimed was running on a PS4 devkit. A claim they revisited a year later at the next E3.

Ferisar:

I didn't know graphical fidelity was a draw in the Souls franchise :P

Deceptive marketing is still deceptive marketing.

Dragonbums:

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.

It's supposed to be damage control. They're getting busted for a game that looks significantly worse than prior in-game footage, and they're backtracking.

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.

As we enter the new gen, we're seeing more and more spec sets with minimums around that level. It's not the norm, but it soon will be.

 Pages 1 2 3 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here