Witcher 3 sales | PC = 30%, Consoles = 70%

Well, I would hope it had more sales on two platforms combined than it did on the PC...plus there's no arguing the fact that there just really aren't that many people with a PC that can run Witcher 3 well, I thought this was common sense?

@AM-Gamer:

Sorry, but the visual difference between the PS4 version and the PC version on ultra is not "mild", not even mentioning framerate. I said "medium" and "medium/low" because that is the most accurate description of the game compared to the PC version in all regards bar texture resolution. The thing that cracks me up about console fanboys, cows in particular is how they downplay objective facts pertaining to actually playing the game, and will instead hold onto a 5% sales delta to bash another platform. Unless you're a developer sales delta's this close means next to nothing, the PS4 isn't getting any exclusive content as far as I know. This thread is abysmal, and was quickly turned around into cows defending their copy of the game. Play on whatever platform you want, but when attacking PC gaming you should probably come up with a better defense in your choice of platform than "sales derp." If anything you're just feeding the PC Master Race's "the few the proud" elitist mantra.

@Juub1990: I don't know the specific time I spent playing the game but I did spend 16 days straight playing witcher 3 and that got me 2 playthroughs the second took 3 out of the 16 days. So either way one can say there was a lot of content. Being someone who gets bored extremely easily I don't think I would have kept playing the game if it was full of filler content. You're right the treasure collection is no doubt a fetch quest but I didn't even collect a quarter of the total amount of treasures, still took more than 100 hours. The point is you're expecting something which wouldn't have happened in the first place given the scarcity of resources, don't get me wrong, as a pc gamer I'd argue if pc was the only gaming platform then we'd have CGI graphics by now... The paradox is consoles limit the technology however without them the game wouldn't even exist in the first place.

Hahaha consoles guys are always awesome for these responses, cheers for the lol's :)

It's sad when it's gotten to the point were you can't tell if someone is being satirical/trolling or an actual console fanboy with how insane they sound.

For example, @Pray_to_me vs. @m3dude1 . Which one of these is a troll, mocking console fanboys through satire, or actual lunatic fanboys?

So PC did 30% by itself and that's fail compared to 70% sold on console? That's 35% for Xbone and 35% for PS4...

Considering the bugs and downgrade it had on PC because of the poor consoles a difference of only 5% is small and could be argued it's marginal error.

@Dasein808: Are you delusional? 30% of sales were on PC PERIOD! It's not like they just cut that out and gave those games away for free. However many sales it's included in the 30% just like the XB1 bundles are included in the 70%.

Except that you're wrong.

What part of the CDPR PR representative's qualifying statement do you not understand?

He knows that the denser consolites will gloss over the qualifying statement and read the answer that they want, but he prefaces his statement with a qualification for a reason.

WE DO NOT GIVE DETAILED INFORMATION ON THE DISTRIBUTION OF SALES OF THE WITCHER 3.

IN GREATLY SIMPLIFIED TERMS...

'Sup guys

PS4 is a juggernaut. The 3rd entry in a franchise that has never released on playstation sells 50% on PS4. The revenue this version has generated for the gaming industry. This means PS4 is getting people who played Witcher 1 and/or 2 to switch from other platforms like PC and it's bringing in new consumers to the franchise. Wow.

@Dasein808: That in no way says they are not included. Perhaps a college degree and a breath of fresh air will help you understand things better.

He doesn't give two shit what console gamers think he's just stating basic facts and somehow you are butthurt it got outsold by the console version.

@wizard: The thread is about sales "derp" perhaps learn to stay on topic instead of ranting about superior graphics are maybe create another thread. And no medium/low is not accurate. The game has more settings equivalent to high then it does to low. DF already proved that so perhaps you should get basic facts straight before you go off topic and bash something.

@AM-Gamer:

Yeah the thread is about sales, how PC with less total sales than both consoles combined still made more profit than them.

Why would those two things help?

Doesn't say they are included either, if it was bundled with hardware I probably would have excluded it from sales data as well as it's not a representation of who who bought the game but who bought the hardware (and maybe wanted the game a bit too).

Yet I bet they made more money through those PC sales. (Digital is far more profitable.) You can lower a $50 retail game to about $30-$40 and make the same amount. That plus the $10 royalties...

A digital sale of $45 on PC could get the developer twice as much money as a $60 retail sale on consoles, or it could get them nothing extra if the publisher sucks it all up.

@AM-Gamer:

"The thread is about sales "derp" perhaps learn to stay on topic instead of ranting about superior graphics are maybe create another thread."

Am I supposed to argue the sales data? This thread was made to dog PC gaming, so I responded in kind by dogging the PS4 copy of the Witcher 3. If my comment was totally irrelevant than you should have immediately said so, instead of trying to claim my point as incorrect or not feasible.

"And no medium/low is not accurate. The game has more settings equivalent to high then it does to low. DF already proved that..."

I've seen the DF analysis and read the thread. The PS4 lacks adequate anisotropic filtering and tessellation that would be present in the high ultra/presets so saying texture and water quality is on high/ultra isn't accurate to the actual PC settings. NPC's are lower than low. The frame rate drops below 30 very often, which is the default frame lock when selecting the medium preset. "Medium/low" is therefore more accurate than "medium/high" when considering actual visual quality. PC settings to the "equivalent" console settings would yield superior IQ unless you tweaked the ini files accordingly. DF did mention the absent graphical features in their comparison, as well as the frame dips.

"so perhaps you should get basic facts straight before you go off topic and bash something."

The irony...

AM-Gamer getting absolutely wrecked to the point where he has to insult peoples "College degrees".

Destruction...

1. You're replying to the wrong person. I never said PC was first place salces for every AAA title. I don't think any pc gamer does....30% of 3 platforms is great. Reply to someone else?

2. You're over playing what PCMR say about sales by an exponential margin. I barely see the sales argument at PCMR or here unless PC is attacked first. I don't see most PC gamers brag about sales as PC's "big thing" or reason for being superior. I see most PC gamers brag about:

• Most overall aaa/aa/aa and AAA/AA/A titles.
• Best version of over 90% of video games. Better gfx/performance in general.
• Best online and competitive play by far.
• Mods and other open features.

3. PC actually does get great revenue from AAA mmorpgs,sims,rts,tbs,etc. Apparently AAA games in those genres don't matter because you never see big advertising campaigns. It's wise of you to only act as if big hyped releases from a handful of companies count. Either way, PC has more gaming revenue than all 6 consoles combined, so would it be a big red flag if a PCMR brought up PC factually being best at sales once and a while when attacked? Oh noes, it didn't get best sales in a handful of AAA's a year. "Only X genre and/or Y budget counts! Why? Because I said so!"

@-God-: @phantomfire335: @wizard: I'll gladly kill three birds with one stone. The console version is set to around 8x AF and the game lacks tesselation even on PC. Lighting, textures , geometry detail, foliage, character models are either medium or high on console. The only settings set to low are shadow draw distance and npc count. So out of all the settings all are a mix of high and medium with the exception of two.

Now I will gladly continue to wreck the illiterate three stooges who branched on to talk about visual settings because a game that started on PC sold better on a console.

Now he's bragging about 19 fps on medium. Oh lawd.

Well he admitted he doesnt have a gaming PC.

@Heil68: That's true he doesn't.

Ouch. Digital Foundry laying the factual rekt bombs on this goon.

@arunsunk: They never broke down profits. And that wouldn't be a surprise since they get %100 of profits on cog.

@AM-Gamer: They did break down profits just not by platform. They haven't given exact numbers but they have given GOG numbers and using those(&Steamspy) it is not hard to see PC earning 1.5 million copies digitally from the 6 million total. With the 70% in return from Steam and their 100% from GOG they definitely get great profits on PC.

Woohoo PC gaming wins!

I got Witcher 3 for free from the promo so whatever.

And with this mixture of medium/high/low settings, the PS4 drops down to around 20 fps and can't maintain a stable 30. And btw, you're talking about visual settings just as much as the other guys.

You've wrecked nobody, as usual.

Witcher3 wrecked PS4.

When there's less games to play on a system, they tend to focus in on the few good games there are.

So of course it sold better on consoles. :-P

@phantomfire335: Yea I did , you just live in denial and keep spinning. It's medium/low .... Actually no it's mostly medium/high ... It's 20 fps ..... Actually it's mostly 30 fps.

I just called you out on bullshit eventhough it's irrelevant to this thread as what really matters is a PC franchise sold best on PS4.

@-God-: Wrecked sales charts on PS4 that is.

Lol, I don't recall saying that it was medium/low or mostly 30 fps. I've only ever said the game uses a mixture of medium/high/low settings but can't maintain a stable 30 fps with drops to 20.

You haven't called me out on anything or wrecked me at all, you can keep believing that if it helps you sleep better at night though.

But i agree with you when you say this isn't what the thread is about, however it wasn't me who spun it this way.

Awwww.......yeah, great to see @AM-Gamer: still butthurt over the fact that Witcher 3 made more money for devs on PC. :D

Oh and just to throw a little more fuel, cows are still not able to play the RPG of all time, the winner of coveted 10/10: Witcher 3. So sad, they are stuck with the unplayable 19 FPS version. I'm hearing CDPR have trouble trying to get the expanion pack to run at 19.5 FPS on 900pStation. It's either the 0.5 FPS more or forced 1080pee due to the cheap ass tablet CPU and 2010's 570 level GPU inside of 900pStation. :P

so only 30% of people are playing with a proper framerate? that is sad.

I was pretty impressed with the PS4 package...the map and extras were a major advantage over digital for me

Game plays great on PS4, frame rate drops in a couple spots over a massive game. You guys wouldn't even know if some website didn't show you the stats

99.99% of gameplay is 30 fps

@phantomfire335: You posted a response to someone else's post talking about how he destroyed me when he was in fact wrong. Don't be his fanboy if you know what he is saying is bullshit.

@zeeshanhaider: Except cows are able to play it, matter of fact more cows are playing it then PC gamers:D bahaha!

Suck on that salt troll.

@arunsunk: I never denied that but it's not something to celebrate. An all digital future has more disadvantages to me.

^that meltdown That inferiority.

@AM-Gamer:

You may want more stones, you straight up missed.

"The console version is set to around 8x AF"

Source please? Why would AF be on 8x if the shadow and foilage draw distance is so low? The screenshots certainly don’t look similar to the PC high preset with a rough comparison and rumors say the PS4's texture filtering was downgraded after release (patch 1.03/1.04) to boost the framerate. 4x seems likely. In fact a quick google search about what AF settings the PS4 runs led large amounts of complaints about the PS4 struggling with quality AF in general, not just Witcher 3.

"...and the game lacks tesselation even on PC"

From Digital Foundry: "However the water detail is of a much higher quality on PC, with ripples rendered with a higher precision grade of tessellation." Did you just make that up on the spot? Also, what do you think hairworks is? Hairworks is on at the high preset.

"Lighting, textures, geometry detail, foliage, character models are either medium or high on console"

First of all nobody is arguing the presence of medium settings. None of what you just named are on high except for maybe the immediate character models. They look significantly worse than PC ultra, which is almost identical to high settings. If you think I’m BSing, GamerNexus’s data shows the delta between high and ultra is 5mb’s VRAM, while it is close to 200mb’s at medium. Combined with direct screenshots, it is either that the PS4’s texture quality is medium, or the texture filtering is extremely poor. I’m more inclined to believe the later, meaning that even if the PS4 does have presets set to high, there are other features downgraded or missing (texture filtering, tessellation) so that it does not properly represent the visual fidelity that is the correct PC high presets. Medium/low is a more accurate description than medium/high.

@AM-Gamer: Devs getting more money per individual copy isn't something to celebrate??? 1.5 million copies equaling the revenue of 4.5 million copies is definitely something to take note of. Whatever disadvantages you may have with an all digital future it holds to be a more profitable medium for devs than retail by far, especially when selling as a 1st party distributor.

Am-Gamer ends up the punching bag in every thread he posts.

This brings great smiles to me beautiful face.

@AM-Gamer: Well no, what he's saying isn't bullsh*t. I said the settings are a mixture of medium/high/low on there own. He says that a better representration of it would be medium/low. I'm assuming he says this due to the poor performance and inferior visual quality compared to the PCs settings.