@colourful_hippie: No performance fix will give you "Ultra textures" running on a decent framerate with those 770's and their 2 GB vram, sorry but there is nothing Ubisoft could possibly "patch" about you simply not having enough memory.
@unilad: You are right in that Watch Dogs is no Crysis, as these games don't even share the same genre, but it is a "Crysis" in the regard that it's making use of 3+ GB vram setups and HT CPU's. '
What made Crysis so "special" during it release that it basically killed every GPU you threw at it (Sounds familiar?) and you best brought a multi core CPU to the ride if you wanted to have any decent fun.
The game works well on medium settings on most setups, that's where "mass market" is actually located on the performance spectrum. But when the "mass market" expects to max out any new game, regardless of the actual performance of a setup, then the "mass market" has to be gotten pretty damn stupid and clueless.
@nethlem: I think you're overestimating the impact the PS4's GDDR5 is going to have on games...the new consoles are SOC's. No amount of GDDR5 in the world is going to make up for having a weak SOC GPU that needs to run on low power and be ultra quiet versus a discrete, fully powered graphics card.
Not overestimating at all, at the end of this current console gen (PS4/Xbox One) the average vram on gamer GPU's will be around 6+ GB, i'm willing to bet money on that (and most likely will lose as this console gen could also end up crashing and burning pretty soon). I already quoted Epic and Sebastien Vierd, in the above linked article, also goes into details about this, it's all about streaming from the memory.
A SOC might never be able to compete with the raw computing power of an dedicated GPU, as the SOC has to dedicate some of it's performance for tasks that are usually handled by a dedicated CPU in a PC.
But what you ignore is that an SOC is removing another bottleneck, the one between CPU and GPU, that's also why the large unified memory is so important. The PS4 basically preloads all the required assets into the memory, without having the need to "compute" them just in the moment it needs them.
And while a gaming PC might have 8+ GB dedicated system memory, it's only DDR3 which is kind of slow compared to GDDR5, in that regard a PC architecture also has a lot of more possible bottlenecks (System ram -> CPU -> GPU -> Vram (with all kinds of bridges between them) vs SOC -> System ram/vram) that's why it's easy to underestimate how much actual "CPU power" SOC's can produce, while still managing to keep a lot of free performance for GPU tasks.
Look, it's not like i'm claiming something unthinkable or never before suggested here: The long lasting 360/PS3 console gen has had PC gaming hardware requirements bottlenecked for quite a while, that's also the reason PC gaming got especially "cheap" these past years. Games that made "full use", out of the box, of the available high-end hardware just for "shiny stuff" had been very few these last years. Sure you can always crush your hardware by throwing impossible amounts of anti aliasing at it to kill your GPU with any game, but that's not really an useful benchmark for the actual performance increases (in term of new hardware and how much it actually had been better) we've had these past years.
This new console gen is way more "PC like" than many think, that's why in turn we get higher PC requirements as the "base console version" will be more demanding from the very start, so an appropriate PC version will end up even more demanding compared to 360/PS3 ports (reminder: 256 MB vram), it's the only logical course of things that in turn the "base performance" of gaming PC's has to rise over time until it hits another pseudo imposed "console ceiling".
Condescending is one word for it.
Mr fucking know it all is pretty happy to talk all day telling us things we know and that there's obviously a single upgrade path we all should of taken, when the simple matter is like you say, that is should run better than what it is.
When i'm telling things that "we know", how come you did chose a shitty upgrade path? There also is not "a single upgrade path we all should of taken", there simply have been choices made in the past which had been the wrong ones. Look, i also frequent some hardware related forums and over there it's always been the same story with "Need help with gaming build!" threads. They result in discussions over the amount of vram required for a setup and people always skimping out on the extra vram because "no game ever uses it".
Now is the time when mainstream AAA games actually start using said extra vram, without using any third party mods, and people with the cheaper and smaller vram versions get angry at software for filling their smaller memory too fast, while the people with the extra vram are happy they can finally fill it up with something like ultra textures, it's all kind of ironic.
o my fucking god will you listen to yourself.