CDPR must love ez to please consumers who always seem to lower expectations. It must drive innovation and creativity alot!

please CDPR tell us this isn't true... If this game is optimized for consoles with a streamlined menu and/or dumbed down mechanics, I'm getting a refund... I trusted you guys.

It'd be very nice of you to share with us what is evidence to you? Any article on the net or some articles from particular source you consider to be reliable? Are we talking about simple familiarization with the subject or deep analysis? For now I'd kindly ask you to look at this short article: What's Wrong with Wikipedia? I hope Harvard is a reputable source in your view.

Important quote from the article you cited.

"The fact that Wikipedia is not a reliable source for academic research doesn't mean that it's wrong to use basic reference materials when you're trying to familiarize yourself with a topic."

I am not writing an academic paper I am having a conversation. I cited Wikipedia only to show when Activision was created and what their first game was. This is rather basic information.

I did not use it as the source for the size of the console market that was a separate source which is the more pertinent piece of information and that which you ignored.

Is it your contention that Wikipedia isn't valid as a source for when a company is formed and can't be used to reference a casual conversation? Because that isn't what your article is saying it is saying that it isn't academically rigorous which isn't the same thing at all. in fact it clearly stats in the first paragraph that when the stakes are low as in this type of conversation its really not a problem and it can give you a basic picture to start from.

"There's nothing more convenient than Wikipedia if you're looking for some quick information, and when the stakes are low (you need a piece of information to settle a bet with your roommate, or you want to get a basic sense of what something means before starting more in-depth research), you may get what you need from Wikipedia. In fact, some instructors may advise their students to read entries for scientific concepts on Wikipedia as a way to begin understanding those concepts."

If you think the article is designed to dismiss anything cited by Wikipedia then you clearly failed to either read of understand the article.

I have been the only one providing any evidence for my position and citing my source which was not solely Wikipedia.

Fact is, if people can play on it, games will be made for it. Consoles mean nothing. If there were no consoles, PC gaming would still be in full swing.

Phones, probably the worst gaming medium of all, are some of the biggest gaming cash cows at the moment. Your argument that consoles kept PC gaming alive is ridiculous and bunk from the outset :)

So how does what determine which opinions are fact? Facts are also debateable they get debated all the time in the scientific community and when something we hold as fact is proven to be wrong said fact is amended. Facts are not immutable. Evidence is used to establish fact. Evidence is also not proof they are not synonyms. Proof is the verdict that removes all doubts whereas evidence only leads one in the direction of a fact or statement.

In a conversation like this people are stating opinion. So how do you strengthen your argument? You use evidence, in a conversation on the internet you are unlikely to provide comprehensive evidence to claim you have proven your point. Which is why I use the term evidence and not proof. Not one person has anyone used evidence to counter my point about the origins of the home video game industry yet I have provided evidence. Its interesting that my actual evidence hasn't been countered by anything just ignored.

You can ignore evidence all you want doesn't make it false, just like ignoring climate change doesn't actually make it false.
Really because I have yet to see any numbers that showed how vibrate and profitable the computer video game market was in the late 1970s. Where is the evidence?

I have claimed that consoles CREATED the industry and we therefore owe a debt to them and should stop QQ about them like they ruined the industry when the industry exist because they exist. You seem think they had nothing to do with it yet you haven't shown how the computer game industry was a vital and growing industry pre Atari 2600. Please show me any evidence that gives weight to your position. Or is evidence not needed for you to believe something?

Your way of talking to people in this thread reminds me of my youth with its teen issues and desperate wish to prove my point to others. Then I got older (not that old, heh), got some experience, nice job, some things to do in spare time and this teen bs stayed behind.

And of course I read the article before giving you the link. "There's nothing more convenient than Wikipedia if you're looking for some quick information". Agreed. That's why I asked you: "Are we talking about simple familiarization with the subject or deep analysis?" Evidence implies analysis. And if you're just "having casual conversation" then Wikipedia is alright, cite it as much as you like, but don't mention evidence then. Don't mix things up.

Witcher 1 came out on PC. People bought it and played it. Apparently there is a market for PC only games, even for very niche products like this. Plenty of games owe nothing to consoles. Like all the Infinity Engine games (Baldur's Gate, etc).

PC hardware development has never been dependent on the console markets.

If you really want to talk about who created what - PC gamers created the PC gaming market. Ever since the Intel 286, gamers have wanted higher fidelity and have put down the cash to support this desire. Nvidia and ATI put out their graphics cards not because of the console market, but because of of all the PC gamers who enjoy the platform. There have been other key players of course, but the fact remains that consoles played no part in the proliferation of PC gaming.

The only real argument that could hold water would be if gaming companies could not have survived or put out games on PC without the consoles - and this is clearly not the case.

Well said.

Hey, guys, what about this article: The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt – Is Your System Ready? Find Out? It says: "On PC, the experience will be enhanced with higher-resolution textures, higher-quality effects, higher levels of detail, uncapped framerates, and many other enhancements". Doesn't sound like a downgrade to me. Or is it just a way they advertise 9xx series?

Getting into arguments with these sort of people is always an uphill battle you can never win.The sooner you give up on it the more time you save to spend on constructive arguments with adults :)

Totally agree! Wasn't planning to continue. But I reckon a little clarification of my previous thought was needed since it was partially ignored. If that doesn't help, I wash my hands.

I'm glad I didn't preorder the Witcher 3 or else I'd ask for a refund. I do feel lied to by the devs to be honest.

This guy expresses my feelings very well:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=34ub2n6F0yo

Give me the version you promised in 2013 and I'll see about buying this thing. It makes me laugh to see them moan about piracy and begging pirates to buy the game when they deliver a product that looks nothing like the game they promised back in 2013. CD Projekt has lost all credibility with me, that's for sure.

Stop , this is a fake, this dummy ( whatifgaming.com ) is looking for buzz and nothing else, just stop sharing