Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Watch Dogs Graphics and Gameplay: PC Vs. Xbox One, With Surprising Results

Soulskill posted about a month and a half ago | from the platform-wars dept.

Graphics 210

MojoKid writes: Normally, the question of whether a game runs better on the PC or a console is a no-brainer, at least for PC users. Watch Dogs, however, with its problematic and taxing PC play, challenges that concept. And since the gap between consoles and PCs is typically smallest at the beginning of the console generation, HotHardware decided to take the Xbox One out for a head-to-head comparison against the PC with this long-awaited title. What was found may surprise you. Depending on just how much horsepower your PC has, the Xbox One (and possibly the PS4 though that wasn't compared) might be the better option. There's no question that the PC can look better, even before you factor in the mods that have been released to date, but unless you've spent $300 or more on a fairly recent GPU, you're not going to be able to run the game at sufficiently high detail to benefit from the enhanced image quality and resolution. If you have a Radeon HD 7950 / R9 280 or an NVIDIA card with greater than 4GB of RAM or a GeForce GTX 780 / 780 Ti, you can happily observe Watch Dogs make hash out of the Xbox One — but statistically, only a minority of gamers have this sort of high-end hardware. This comparison should be viewed in light of the recent allegations that the PC version's graphics were deliberately handicapped.

cancel ×

210 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Unless you've spent $300 on a GPU... (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47412487)

......you won't be able to tolerate incompetent VRAM padding and crippling redundancy of a very 2007-looking game.

Re:Unless you've spent $300 on a GPU... (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47412535)

Forget 2007. The game is not even much of a topic. Bland enough to not make as much of an impact as it was advertised to do. Watch_Dogs and Titanfall are both disappointments. Happy I didn't get caught up in the hype for them. Need to be wary of Dragon Age next.

Re:Unless you've spent $300 on a GPU... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47413225)

TFA is an XBox advert.

Microsoft has bought a lot of page-inches of Slashdot and wants their money's worth.

Re:Unless you've spent $300 on a GPU... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47414125)

No, it's further confirmation that Ubisoft is anti-PC. This is the company who instituted a constant internet connection requirement for single player games and are always treating their PC customers like criminals.

The first and last Ubisoft game I bought is Rayman on the original PlayStation. I will never give them another dime and I encourage every gamer I know not to as well.

Re:Unless you've spent $300 on a GPU... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47413721)

Forget 2007. The game is not even much of a topic. Bland enough to not make as much of an impact as it was advertised to do. Watch_Dogs and Titanfall are both disappointments. Happy I didn't get caught up in the hype for them. Need to be wary of Dragon Age next.

That's okay. Me and millions of other players are still enjoying the game without you.

Re:Unless you've spent $300 on a GPU... (1)

Stuarticus (1205322) | about a month and a half ago | (#47414443)

Wasn't Dragon Age 2 enough to make you wary?

Re:Unless you've spent $300 on a GPU... (4, Insightful)

L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) | about a month and a half ago | (#47414477)

Really? Games published by Ubi (Watch Dogs) and EA (Titanfall) didn't live up to their hype?

I am Jack's total lack of surprise.

Re:Unless you've spent $300 on a GPU... (1)

donaldm (919619) | about a month and a half ago | (#47412665)

Flame wars here we come. :)

Actually the best way to get console fanboys (yes there are girls as well), who are normally at each others throats to actually agree together is when PC fanboys criticize consoles. Still a high end (and more expensive) PC will always beat a console in terms of performance, however most PC's are not high end (as per the article) so the so called elitist criticism is rather childish.

Re:Unless you've spent $300 on a GPU... (0)

sd4f (1891894) | about a month and a half ago | (#47412993)

Especially childish when you go to the PC Master Race subreddit, and find out that most of them are actually kids in school who continually whinge that their friends won't join them.

Re:Unless you've spent $300 on a GPU... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47413105)

Yeah. Lets blame reddit and the PC Master Race meme after a decade of "PC GAMING IS DEAD!"-headlines, innumerable DRM efforts and the entire industry screaming "PIRACY! THEREFORE NO MORE PC GAMES!"

This is the shithole the video game industry dug itself. They can dig themselves out. Now get off my lawn.

Re:Unless you've spent $300 on a GPU... (1)

mjwx (966435) | about a month and a half ago | (#47413513)

The ultimate argument for the PC gaming master race is that you get a lot of console to PC ports but hardly a sniff in the other direction.

You can port up but you can't port down.

Re:Unless you've spent $300 on a GPU... (1)

Wootery (1087023) | about a month and a half ago | (#47413921)

You can port up but you can't port down.

Well, it's not impossible. I can name several games which have been ported from PC to less-powerful consoles.

Re:Unless you've spent $300 on a GPU... (1)

Stuarticus (1205322) | about a month and a half ago | (#47414451)

Can you name any that weren't utter disasters though?

Re: Unless you've spent $300 on a GPU... (1)

gTsiros (205624) | about a month and a half ago | (#47414449)

you do realize /r/pcmasterrace is tongue-in-cheek at best? Something like /r/circlejerk

Argue selection (1)

tepples (727027) | about a month and a half ago | (#47413209)

Still a high end (and more expensive) PC will always beat a console in terms of performance

Instead of performance, argue selection. There are more PC games not available for any given console than games for some console not on PC at all. Unless you're a fan of a particular first party universe (like the Smash Bros. universe) or a genre that historically gets ignored on PC (like platform fighting or JRPGs), you'll find more to choose from on PC.

Oh, and FRAND standards aren't completely proprietary, but they aren't free either.

Re:Unless you've spent $300 on a GPU... (2, Informative)

Darinbob (1142669) | about a month and a half ago | (#47412835)

Unless you've spend $300 on an xbox... (or whatever they cost).

Basically PC games makes sense because most people already have a PC (or Mac). Currently, except for some high end recently released shooters (like watchdogs) in a competitive environment, you don't need a high end GPU and you can get by with a reasonably cheap one less than the cost of a console, or even play on a laptop.

Ten years ago with a mid-range system you would tweak and poke the settings trying to get the best view you could get without causing the game to stutter and lag, but today most games just work great out of the box. Ie, when Oblivion was new people would struggle to get things to look great while still being playable; today though you get Skyrim and accept the defaults.

So buying a console really doesn't save any money, unless you're getting it because you have kids or you want to keep the spouse of your computer. Plus you can even attach a game controller to the PC if you're the sort that prefers that to a mouse and keyboard.

Re:Unless you've spent $300 on a GPU... (2)

donaldm (919619) | about a month and a half ago | (#47414177)

Basically PC games makes sense because most people already have a PC (or Mac).

In what way does PC gaming make more sense? I have a gaming PC that actually runs Linux (ie. Fedora) as my primary and only OS although I do have virtual machines which I hardly every run. Normally a Linux distribution will not run "Games for Windows" without an emulator which in my case I could not be bothered to do, however if the game is web based I normally can run it. I can even run EMU games such as NES, SNES, Megadrive etc. Having said that I actually prefer console games over PC games.

IMHO the gamer has to make the choice of which gaming system they prefer. If you like PC gaming then fine, if you prefer consoles then that is fine also and if you like both then that is fine as well.

Re:Unless you've spent $300 on a GPU... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47414235)

PC (or Mac)

Macs are PCs.

Re:Unless you've spent $300 on a GPU... (1)

Stormwatch (703920) | about a month and a half ago | (#47414649)

Watch Dogs is just a shitty port. But from what I heard, the rather modest (sub-$150) GTX 650Ti will handle Titanfall better than the Xbox One.

Re:Unless you've spent $300 on a GPU... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47414717)

I've got a i7-3770 and a R9 280X. I'm not even a gamer, but for some reason feel the need to get nice FX cards. Although I got the 280X after AMD/ATI decided not to release drivers for my previous $300+ card (X1900XTX) for Windows 7. Didn't notice the default drivers until doing some 3D rendering and it ran like a damn 486.

every gamer sez (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47412529)

my rig is BIGGER than yer dick

Still stuck with an Athlon XP 6000+ (2)

rsilvergun (571051) | about a month and a half ago | (#47412543)

Because it hangs with any rig less than $400. Put a GTX 660 in this year so I could keep gaming in Win 7 after the forced upgrade from XP.

Re:Still stuck with an Athlon XP 6000+ (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47412573)

so maybe this is a everyman's informal sociology experiment. I really wanted to come on here and say NIGGERS! and have somebody read it and feel offended. modding it down will work too, means you read it and decided it should be demoted. there are taboos you must be seen to enforce after all. thanks in advance for your cooperation!

Re:Still stuck with an Athlon XP 6000+ (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47412611)

i do these experiments to, one thing i noticed is if u say "niggers" u just get modded down with no replies but if u say "jews" you get modded down and a bunch of angry dudes call u a nazi and say u r worse than hitler. why if i say niggers i'm not worse than thomas jefferson or some other brutal rapist slave master? it's like a kind of soft discrimination.

Re:Still stuck with an Athlon XP 6000+ (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47412643)

"niggers" has negative connotations associated with it. it's generally perceived as an insult.
"jews" is descriptive and not negative in any way.

Re:Still stuck with an Athlon XP 6000+ (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47412843)

"niggers" has negative connotations associated with it. it's generally perceived as an insult. "jews" is descriptive and not negative in any way.

says the guy thats never known a jew.

Re:Still stuck with an Athlon XP 6000+ (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47412587)

i use macs for all my professional stuff but i still have a amd x4 whatever with a nvidia something, still plays all the games even if i have to put the resolution all pixely to get a good frame rate, too bad there aren't any games good enough to give me an excuse to upgrade it.

i haven't done any gaming in years... (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47412551)

but when i watched the videos it made me feel like i was 23 again! ...but only in the sense that the graphics looked like something 2003. i guess i haven't missed much if this is the most hyped game of this generation...wow.

$300 for a GPU (4, Insightful)

Khyber (864651) | about a month and a half ago | (#47412561)

Meanhile, the end result doesn't look THAT much better than the PS3, with its measly GeForce 7900 series.

Re:$300 for a GPU (1)

Darinbob (1142669) | about a month and a half ago | (#47412857)

Because you no longer need the best card in the store to make new games look decent if running at the monitor's native resolution. You can still crank things up if you want and if you have a monitor that can handle it, but most people really can't discern the detail difference.

Re:$300 for a GPU (3, Insightful)

Charliemopps (1157495) | about a month and a half ago | (#47413893)

Meanhile, the end result doesn't look THAT much better than the PS3, with its measly GeForce 7900 series.

This is typical. I don't even understand what this story is about. Yes, you need a $300 GPU in your PC to play a brand new AAA title for a brand new console generation. This happens every generation and for about a year the console people will be shouting "Nanner nanner bo bo" at us... But next year we'll only need a $150 card, and the year after that a $75 card. They'll still need their console and its price wont get cut in half every year.

How do PC gamers address this problem? We don't play AAA titles designed for a console the same year that console was released. They suck for PC anyway.

Re:$300 for a GPU (1)

nabsltd (1313397) | about a month and a half ago | (#47414299)

How do PC gamers address this problem? We don't play AAA titles designed for a console the same year that console was released. They suck for PC anyway.

And, they also might have less tweaks for graphics so that in a few years when that $75 card can run the game at max settings, you still can't get any better quality with a $300 card (which matches today's $700 cards). All the $300 card will do is allow you to run at a higher overall resolution, which eventually will start to expose things like lower polygon counts, lack of anti-aliasing (even injected after the fact sometimes doesn't work), etc.

Say what? (5, Insightful)

djupedal (584558) | about a month and a half ago | (#47412565)

Why does this work so hard to sound organic, when it seems more like a boldfaced ad for xbox?

Re:Say what? (5, Informative)

rwven (663186) | about a month and a half ago | (#47412623)

Yeah, pretty much. Watch Dogs doesn't look nearly as good as plenty of PC games out right now, and runs worse than most.

This is nothing more than a deliberately handicapped, badly ported console game. The author is being a shill for the XBone, but the truth of the matter is that he's hiding Ubisoft's dirty downgrade of the game.

PCs were capable of far more than these machines a year before they were released. Now the comparison is just a bad joke.

because it fucking is (2)

gl4ss (559668) | about a month and a half ago | (#47412767)

maybe the got some straight up cash for it. it's not like there wasn't a scandal about such bullshittery already.

I mean, fuck, we've ALREADY had articles about shit dogs having a pretty shitty pc port that has features it has disabled on purpose to prevent the pc version from looking better.

why the fuck would they choose watchdogs for doing this comparison? did the at least use the tweaks to bring the pc visual quality BACK to what it was on pre-release demo videos of the game? since you can do that on the PC but you can't do that on the xbox and that makes the PC version look a lot better(to the point of it looking like the pr material distributed pre-release)..

of course the PC to run it like that costs more today than xbox one.

Re:because it fucking is (4, Interesting)

rtb61 (674572) | about a month and a half ago | (#47412905)

Let's check the differences. On a PC I can still watch a DVD on my big screen at the same time. Note the appear equally as large as my PC screen is far closer to me than my big screen TV. On my PC I can play a full range of FTP MMO, free flash games on the internet. I can browse the internet while watching TV. Never to forget I have a fully functional upgradable, dual bootable Computer and not just a games console. I can also buy much cheaper games without having to pay a quite expensive console tax and games discount sooner. With PC at a lan party everyone has their own screen so far better multi-player gaming. I have found every console port to be not that good games pretty much dumbed down PC games with clumsy controls.

When comparing a console to a PC, you are really only comparing the additional cost of turning a PC into a gaming machine versus the console and the loss of use of your TV or a second TV (youch, you have just paid for your PC gaming rig). Gaming consoles of course do suit a particular IQ range of the video gaming market, there is not doubt about that and I'll stop there.

Multiple PCs and multiple copies (1)

tepples (727027) | about a month and a half ago | (#47413245)

I can also buy much cheaper games without having to pay a quite expensive console tax

With consoles, you can often buy one copy for the household instead of a separate copy for each player. I'm not aware of any modern PC games doing StarCraft-style spawn installation.

With PC at a lan party everyone has their own screen so far better multi-player gaming.

I thought games for Xbox platforms supported System Link play. Besides, buying one console and sharing a screen is a lot cheaper than buying two to four gaming PCs if you have an SO or kids. What advantage does a separate view offer for things like fighting games and cooperative platformers?

Multiple PCs and multiple copies (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47413429)

If you bought a PC game there's no reason you can't all play on the same PC. Attach the PC gaming rig to the TV in the living room, add USB controllers, and you have a shared system. That's a false dichotomy you've made there.

There's no practical limit on the number of USB controllers you can attach to one PC, and they do support split screen games. So they can do all that already, plus more.

Re:Multiple PCs and multiple copies (2)

Khyber (864651) | about a month and a half ago | (#47414691)

"There's no practical limit on the number of USB controllers you can attach to one PC"

Yes, there is. 127 per USB controller.

Multiple PCs and multiple copies (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47414089)

Actually steam supports family sharing now. http://store.steampowered.com/sharing/

Multiple PCs and multiple copies (1)

SScorpio (595836) | about a month and a half ago | (#47414303)

Family sharing isn't a great solution. A library can only be accessed once, so you if are playing a game on your main PC someone else spouse/kid can't be on another playing a game out of the same library. The only real solution is for non-online games which is to go into Steam offline mode and the games can be accessed on two different machines.

Sony's system on the PS4 is slightly better. On machine is defined as the account's "home" system. Any content is then accessible from any other account logged into that console. You can then sign into another console with the account and access all of the content. Locking online multiplayer behind a pay service sucks, but the ability to play online is also shared with on the "home" system. So if you bought games digitally on one main account, you can easily play the same copy online with another person.

Re:Multiple PCs and multiple copies (1)

nabsltd (1313397) | about a month and a half ago | (#47414345)

...which still doesn't allow two different Steam logins to play the same game at the same time unless it is in both their game libraries.

I'm surprised there are console games that allow you to buy one copy and play on more than one console at the same time, as tepples seems to imply in the GP post.

Re:Multiple PCs and multiple copies (1)

tepples (727027) | about a month and a half ago | (#47414377)

I'm surprised there are console games that allow you to buy one copy and play on more than one console at the same time

Three are plenty on Nintendo DS, such as Mario Kart DS and Tetris DS. I even know of one on Wii: Dr. Mario Online Rx. But on stationary consoles, same-screen play is far more common.

Re:because it fucking is (1)

sd4f (1891894) | about a month and a half ago | (#47413025)

I seriously doubt a greater conspiracy. I think it's a matter of releasing the game at the same time on all platforms, so first, they don't bother optimising the code for PC, second they don't want any striking differences between the platforms, because it will upset one group of fanboys who have invested their egos into that system.

Point being, it's better to just aim for the lowest common denominator. This was visible last generation, where at first there was some variation between X360 and PS4, until eventually the multiport games looked the same on both. There's no doubt that this is just an extension of that to now. They don't want their poster game for the new consoles to look unimportant, so they didn't go to any great lengths to make the PC version stand out.

Bad Ports (4, Informative)

wisnoskij (1206448) | about a month and a half ago | (#47412569)

This is not new or unique. The PC is full of games that have ridiculously bad console-to-PC ports; With shitty controls, poor graphics, bad performance, and with absolutely no configurability.

Re:Bad Ports (1)

sd4f (1891894) | about a month and a half ago | (#47413037)

Although with steam, we're starting to see a class of game which is significantly worse than ever before. Broken, buggy and incomplete games which are PC exclusive...

Re:Bad Ports (2)

Tukz (664339) | about a month and a half ago | (#47413979)

The correct buzz term is "Early Access" and people pay lots of money for it...

Re:Bad Ports (1)

jones_supa (887896) | about a month and a half ago | (#47413697)

This is not new or unique. The PC is full of games that have ridiculously bad console-to-PC ports; With shitty controls, poor graphics, bad performance, and with absolutely no configurability.

Mmmyeah. I never got some of the mini-games, such as bowling, to work properly with keyboard and mouse in GTA IV for PC. Great quality assurance, LOL.

Re:Bad Ports (1)

Stuarticus (1205322) | about a month and a half ago | (#47414481)

I don't think they worked properly on xbox from what I remember, the mini games were awful in that game...

Oh look, it's this thread again (1)

bhcompy (1877290) | about a month and a half ago | (#47412601)

Have an AMD 1090T with a Crossfired Radeon 6870s. Rig is old, but moderately beefy. Game ran fine on medium settings. May not have 4k textures and 16x anti-aliasing, but any hardcore gamer can deal with a little graphic fidelity loss for a playable game(r_picmip 5 anyone?)

Recent allegations... (-1, Troll)

Theaetetus (590071) | about a month and a half ago | (#47412641)

This comparison should be viewed in light of the recent allegations that the PC version's graphics were deliberately handicapped.

Were the allegations true?

Well, no... But...

... uh...

This comparison should be viewed in light of the recent allegations that the name Watch Dogs infringes on numerous trademarks by Swatch!

... are those allegations true?

Again, no... But...

... uh...

This comparison should be viewed in light of the recent allegations that Ubisoft's developers are child molesters!

... are any of those allegations true?

Well...

... um...

This comparison should be viewed in light of the recent shut up!

Hey, Slashdot? How about reporting News for Nerds, not Unsubstantiated Opinions for Nerds? We already have Fox News for that.

Re:Recent allegations... (3, Insightful)

Payden K. Pringle (3483599) | about a month and a half ago | (#47412749)

I'm just saying. Everything we know points to it being deliberately handicapped. The game actually runs better when you enable the settings that made it look gorgeous at E3. It runs better with better graphical fidelity.

The only excuse for disabling that is intentional malice or extreme incompetence. Ubisoft has a history of either of those in regards to PC gamers. If it were an isolated event, I'd go with incompetence, but this is no longer coincidence. I'm pretty sure it's malice due to it's repetition. l

Re:Recent allegations... (1)

0xdeaddead (797696) | about a month and a half ago | (#47412909)

Is there a guide on putting the settings to the e3 like settings?
I set everything to high, and my pc isn't killing itself, but the game doesn't look that great either...

Re:Recent allegations... (2)

pslytely psycho (1699190) | about a month and a half ago | (#47413221)

http://www.moddb.com/games/watch-dogs/news/mod-enables-e3-graphics

http://forums.guru3d.com/showthread.php?t=390114

I don't own it yet, waiting for it to go on sale, but I read about this from one of IceHancers recent posts.

I can't vouch for them, but perhaps they will be a good place to start.

It looks interesting, but not compelling enough to pay in at full price.

Re:Recent allegations... (1)

stealth_finger (1809752) | about a month and a half ago | (#47413745)

I'm just saying. Everything we know points to it being deliberately handicapped. The game actually runs better when you enable the settings that made it look gorgeous at E3. It runs better with better graphical fidelity.

The only excuse for disabling that is intentional malice or extreme incompetence. Ubisoft has a history of either of those in regards to PC gamers. If it were an isolated event, I'd go with incompetence, but this is no longer coincidence. I'm pretty sure it's malice due to it's repetition. l

It's PC so they get to use the 'ensuring optimum quality for all users' line as cover for the bullshots.

Re:Recent allegations... (1)

Theaetetus (590071) | about a month and a half ago | (#47414455)

I'm just saying. Everything we know points to it being deliberately handicapped. The game actually runs better when you enable the settings that made it look gorgeous at E3. It runs better with better graphical fidelity.

... if you never leave a small area, so that everything is full cached. Otherwise, you get significant stuttering. Look at any of the threads on the "mod" that enabled the settings - even as people praise it, they acknowledge that frame rates drop to 30 fps maximum with bursts of less than that vs. 60 fps without the "mod".

Re:Recent allegations... (2)

gl4ss (559668) | about a month and a half ago | (#47412771)

..but the allegations were true and since it's ubi we're talking about they're probably molesting kids to.

Re:Recent allegations... (2)

Mashiki (184564) | about a month and a half ago | (#47412801)

Going by what modders are pulling out of the game [guru3d.com] it does appear that it is true.

Re:Recent allegations... (1)

Theaetetus (590071) | about a month and a half ago | (#47414487)

Going by what modders are pulling out of the game [guru3d.com] it does appear that it is true.

Those modders are praising the wonderful graphics they get with the enabled settings, while admitting that they get stuttering and frame rates below 30 fps. Doesn't sound like Ubisoft "handicapped" the graphics to me, so much as fixed the performance issues.

the mac phenomenon (1)

schlachter (862210) | about a month and a half ago | (#47412661)

In the old days, we all had windows desktops which could be modded and used to play games in addition to it's usual uses.

Now all the kids (and myself) only own Mac laptops, and don't want to buy a windows desktop just to game.

So the easy choice is to drop $200 no a game console to augment the Mac.

Re:the mac phenomenon (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47412815)

Now all the kids (and myself) only own Mac laptops

Well that was silly then wasn't it.

Re:the mac phenomenon (2)

Darinbob (1142669) | about a month and a half ago | (#47412865)

There are more and more games that run on Macs now, at least on Steam (I'm not a Steam lover, but if you've got a mac it's a good way to go).
Although if you've got a macbook pro, do you have money left over to buy a console?

Re:the mac phenomenon (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47412937)

If Steam is planning to release a Linux based console then it should be fairly trivial to port those games over to OSX.

Re:the mac phenomenon (2)

Nyder (754090) | about a month and a half ago | (#47413275)

In the old days, we all had windows desktops which could be modded and used to play games in addition to it's usual uses.

Now all the kids (and myself) only own Mac laptops, and don't want to buy a windows desktop just to game.

So the easy choice is to drop $200 no a game console to augment the Mac.

Let know know when you find a current gen console for $200.

Re:the mac phenomenon (1)

kamapuaa (555446) | about a month and a half ago | (#47413327)

PS3s and XBoxes are still being made/sold, and still have games coming out for them, and that isn't changing any time soon.

Re:the mac phenomenon (1)

jones_supa (887896) | about a month and a half ago | (#47413773)

Yep. And the PS3 and XB360 are still very good platforms actually.

Re: the mac phenomenon (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47413397)

I have a macbook pro myself and the easy choice is dual boot.

Runs skirim on high and planetary annihilation on med, and as far as I am concerned I couldn't care less about those half backed over hyped mass produced doom clones with a single twist.

I do miss forza motorsport, but I'll pick up kerbal space program and castle story every day over it.

you can't just (1)

maweki (999634) | about a month and a half ago | (#47412675)

You can't just compare the Xbox one with a PC of the same price on horsepower when the Xbox one is sold at a loss, making its money back on licences.

Re:you can't just (1)

sd4f (1891894) | about a month and a half ago | (#47413049)

Well, if you're trying to compare value for money you can... Once you factor in cost of games, it starts to become a different story.

Copies per household (1)

tepples (727027) | about a month and a half ago | (#47413269)

Value for money largely depends on how many games in your sample set offer a same screen multiplayer option for those who want to use it. One copy of a $60 game can be cheaper than two copies of a $40 game.

Really bad game to use for this comparison. (1)

EvilSS (557649) | about a month and a half ago | (#47412691)

This game is ridiculously resource intensive on the PC. I usually do a big upgrade on my PC every 5 or 6 years. I just upgraded to a factory overclocked 780ti, z97 mobo, SSD to hold games, 24 gigs of ram (I also run a lot of VMs during the day for work), and a 4790K CPU this past week. With all that this game still struggles to stay at or above 60FPS, dipping to the 40's at times. It is a terrible port.

Titanfall, while not quite so bad, is another game that seems to demand more than it should from the PC. I really hope this isn't the start of a really bad trend of porting over crap, shoving it out the door, and telling the PC community to just throw more hardware at it. My last system lasted 5 years before it really needed an upgrade. I expect the same from this one but I'm starting to think I'm not going to be so lucky.

Re:Really bad game to use for this comparison. (-1, Troll)

Darinbob (1142669) | about a month and a half ago | (#47412871)

Do you need that much FPS? Can anyone really tell much above 30fps? That used to be my baseline for knowing when I could finish tweaking the settings and start playing.

Re:Really bad game to use for this comparison. (1)

UnknownSoldier (67820) | about a month and a half ago | (#47412941)

> Can anyone really tell much above 30 fps?

Oh please. There is a MAJOR difference between gaming at 30 Hz, 60 Hz, and 120 Hz. I play most of my games at 60 Hz and can tell _instantly_ when a game drops to 30 Hz.

This is NOT limited to games.

OWE my eyes @ 24 fps ! [cachefly.net]

Silky smooth @ 60 fps ! [cachefly.net]

If you don't have a 120 Hz monitor and haven't tried LightBoost [blurbusters.com] then you really don't even know what the hell you are talking about saying "30 fps is 'good enough'."

Some game devs are completely ignorant of the importance of 60 Hz.
* http://kotaku.com/5393106/inso... [kotaku.com]

Thankfully some game devs DO understand the importance of 60 Hz.
* http://www.gamespot.com/articl... [gamespot.com]

Please go read up on Temporal Anti-Aliasing [wikipedia.org] if you don't understand why movies can get away with built in Motion Blur.

Re:Really bad game to use for this comparison. (1)

jo_ham (604554) | about a month and a half ago | (#47413441)

Do you need that much FPS? Can anyone really tell much above 30fps? That used to be my baseline for knowing when I could finish tweaking the settings and start playing.

Absolutely. There is a clear difference between 30 and 60 fps when playing computer games.

Anything above 60 is gravy, but getting a game to stay at 60 is what you want, since it tends to be the refresh rate of the screen you're playing on.

Re:Really bad game to use for this comparison. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47413471)

Can you tell the difference between driving at 30mph and 60 mph? Since today is simple question day, or something...

Re:Really bad game to use for this comparison. (3, Insightful)

mjwx (966435) | about a month and a half ago | (#47412873)

I really hope this isn't the start of a really bad trend of porting over crap, shoving it out the door, and telling the PC community to just throw more hardware at it.

What do you mean by start... This has been happening for years.

Re:Really bad game to use for this comparison. (1)

TheDarkMaster (1292526) | about a month and a half ago | (#47414025)

Maybe the PC version is actually the console version running within a custom virtual machine.

Less hardware, less bloat too (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47412693)

Consoles can push the envelope of the hardware they have. With mantle and the upcoming changes to dx and ogl we can expect some improvement. But a lack of hardware consistency, an OS designed to run loads of processes, unauthorized cpu use, etc make pcs a less "nice" atmosphere. if you even use the original xbox, apples to apples hardware (733mhz coppermine, whatever geforce was in there) a pc couldnt make halo look as delicious. plus there are things like hardware audio decompression and effects guaranteed which may not be available on some codec-based audio solutions.

This is all moot. (2)

dohzer (867770) | about a month and a half ago | (#47412703)

The game is rubbish, so who cares which hardware it runs best on?!

Re:This is all moot. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47413329)

And the grapes are sour, why should the fox care that he can't quite jump up to reach them.

But then... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47412719)

You have to consider that Watch Dogs, like most Ubisoft games, is a shitty PC port that's badly optimized. It's deliberately designed to perform better on consoles since the PC version is crippled from the get go.

Slashdot degrades further and further (5, Insightful)

Jahoda (2715225) | about a month and a half ago | (#47412723)

So this is where we're at now? Not just pay-to-play and inflammatory nonsense, but straight-up government-grade XBOX propaganda where we hear complete garbage like "statistically, only a minority of gamers have this sort of high-end hardware", when your bog-standard $200 R9 270x or Nvidia 760-whatever *smokes* the current console generation in terms of image quality. FPS, and resolution?
Not to mention the hilarity of this all centering around "Watch_Dogs", a game that is a textbook example of publisher bait-and-switch and making promises that are never delivered upon. Ubisoft is the Comcast of gaming.
This isn't even my opinion, this stuff is in wide discussion anywhere on the internet that cares about gaming in-general.

Re:Slashdot degrades further and further (1)

kamapuaa (555446) | about a month and a half ago | (#47413349)

But it's true, right? If a cheap Dell off-the-shelf computer was far better than the current generation, that would definitely show how terrible the current consoles are. Instead, you need to spend maybe $800 minimum, you probably want to build the computer yourself and therefor need to have the time and the knowledge to build the computer yourself and then deal with any potential issues...

It's not really a story that you can do better than a console if you're willing to put in a larger amount of money, time, and expertise.

Slashdot degrades further and further (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47413395)

It's just another of those shitty articles to try to attract new audiences (and at the same time alienate old). This slashdot article is representative of why I no longer visit this site more than, lets say, 2 times per month now. Shame.

This ignores the fact... (2)

Karmashock (2415832) | about a month and a half ago | (#47412751)

that the game was cripple... would only people with high end hardware notice? Perhaps... but so what? The PC is not the console. Its not a uniform one size fits all platform. You release your game with variable settings that end users can tweak to get the best performance for THEIR machine.

Its how its done. The engine makers build in the hooks to change graphics settings dynamically on the fly with no trouble for a reason.

Just offer it and move on.

A 7950 cost 149$ (3, Informative)

Osgeld (1900440) | about a month and a half ago | (#47412757)

and has been in my box for over a year

obvious troll story

Re:A 7950 cost 149$ (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47412961)

Yeah, when they said "only a small fractions of gamers have these" i thought oh wow it must be like those ATI FireGL cards in the new Mac Pro that cost like $2,000 each, but then i looked it up and it turns out they cost around $200. Even a kid with a part time minimum wage job on the weekend could swing that, give me a fucking break. Microsoft is always so damn shady, luckily being a Windows user is now a lifestyle choice and not mandatory like it was 15 years ago.

Re:A 7950 cost 149$ (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47414005)

Indeed, I bought my 7950 ages ago when it was expensive. And, of course the ps4 looks better than xbox (slightly) as it's better memory and cpu, but only slightly.

This is what slashdot is now? Just PR like any techblog? This is, and has been, my go to site for years, the NSA could prove that as I hit the site from my computers every hour or so, and have the slashdot app on my android so it's always scraping the site.

But over the past year or so, I'm finding myself having to sift through so much CRAP to find something worth reading, I'm questioning the point of the site.

First thing to do is get rid of the score ratings, it's crap and the comment sections prove it. Second thing to do is allow us to flag users, not posts, USERS, so we can flag this author for posting blatant probably PAID xbox nonsense, then allow me to set my options so I won't even see a story from someone who has passed my threshold for crap posts. Yes, this system can be gamed too....

That's why the third thing to do is recruit CREDIBLE editors to sift through the crap and justify or remove it.

hmmmmm (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47412921)

I have a feeling that the author of the OP works for M$

Surprising results? (1)

DRMShill (1157993) | about a month and a half ago | (#47412995)

Surprising results would be Ubisoft making a PC port that's stable and efficient right out of the gate and doesn't attack its customers with onerous DRM. The headline almost reads like an Onion article.

Re:Surprising results? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47413423)

Impossible ... uncle Sony and uncle Microsoft would slap Ubisoft...they payed for a cripple PC version... however there are already mods releasing its full potential so...

Funny is that i compared nightly graphics of Watch dogs with sleeping dogs both on max... and i was amazed at how sleeping dogs still feels more alive.

advert (1)

ted leaf (2960563) | about a month and a half ago | (#47413137)

nice advert /Â its from ubisoft. a crap firm. with a crap history. and crap games. crap in,crap out. leave the tat to consoles. concentrate on turning out one good pc game a year,forget all the ports etc,just one good one a year, or if valve,7 years (a qyick hint

... this review is just bad (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47413333)

The cited review is one of the worst I've ever seen - judgement is _solely_ done using screenshots and some crappy video not even showing the same scene - no fraps (not necessarily the best thing, but pretending to be objective doesn't hurt either), nothing... And then the claim: For playing Watch Dogs on PC you have to spend so much more money than for a console, since, you know, you NEED this >300$ GPU, because the game needs soo much VRAM - which is something you can even get for 100$ (gt740 with 4gb...) with console-like computational capability. But hey, still the author sees no need for lowering res to console levels (just around half the pixels), to make a fair comparison, or to specify which graphics cards he used (I think using my 1GB HD6850 would just produce this results - but it is basically 3 years old...)!

Considering that, I don't hope that Microsoft is financing such kind of Internet Troll...

$250 from 4 years ago is fine (1)

loufoque (1400831) | about a month and a half ago | (#47413359)

I bought my GPU for 250 dollars 4 years ago and it still runs all games on high settings.

terrible comparison .. (1)

strstr (539330) | about a month and a half ago | (#47413377)

this is a terrible comparison. because the comparison should have only included PCs capable of running games in the first place. this generally means you have purchased a $200 or better graphics card at the moment the game was launched to go with it.

this is the equivalent of buying an Xbox or PS and for your PC, making your PC a gaming center. if you don't do this then your PC is not capable of playing games and you shouldn't expect to be able to run the PC version of any game whatsoever.

true gamers who use their PC for a replacement or competitor to consoles DO upgrade and DO buy graphics cards that aren't garbage.

and those are the only people who should expect to play games. just like 14+ years ago.

back then you knew if you didn't have a GeForce 2 GTS or a fucking Voodoo or a Radeon 7500 you knew you weren't going to be playing the game very well or at all. don't know what most computers had but if you didn't buy the gaming options you couldn't play .. lol.

todays systems are equipped with shit graphics by default just the same as always. you know, might be an Intel CPU, or even a Radeon built into an AMD CPU.. those are not anything but designed to run the desktop and basic CPU only tasks. the GPU acceleration while it may work is not meant for games of any caliber..

Watchdogs graphics and gameplay (1)

CharlieWeasley (2007166) | about a month and a half ago | (#47413685)

Just ordered a PS4 with The Last of Us Remastered. Looking foreward to it. I also want to play whatchdogs then, but I heard so much negativ opinions about it. Also that the graphics just on PC in super resolution is good, and not so much on the PS4. What do you guys think about the gameplay?

Duh... (1)

Robert Goatse (984232) | about a month and a half ago | (#47413709)

"...but unless you've spent $300 or more on a fairly recent GPU, you're not going to be able to run the game at sufficiently high detail to benefit from the enhanced image quality and resolution."

What gamer junkie doesn't have a kick ass video card? $300 for a GPU is nothing when you can drop $6-700 USD on the latest and greatest offering.

Stupid article (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47413899)

Most PC gamers I know spend about as much on a GPU upgrade around new console launches (give or take 2 years) than you would spend on a console.

CPU and RAM haven't had much in terms of upgrade options in ... 5-6 years? (anyone who spent well back then is likely still gaming on such a system quite fine).

The exception is PCI express standards which may be limiting newer GPUs system bandwidth, but lets be frank - all AAA games shipping to date don't have the quality of textures required to saturate even PCI Express 1, so it's a moot point short of uncompressed HD-res texture mods.

hmmmmm (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47414105)

I spent more on my Nvidia 780 than my buddy's xbone cost. Of course it bloody well better look better on PC than on some peasant console...

The end-all logic (2)

slashmydots (2189826) | about a month and a half ago | (#47414635)

Sorry but the console won't get any better over the years and PC hardware will. So even a year from now, everyone will be playing Watch Dogs at a higher quality.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>