Assassin's Creed Unity Locked to 900p/30fps on Both PS4 and XBO to "avoid all the [performance] deba - Polidicks

[QUOTE=CrimsonChin;46168383]If the CPU was bottlenecking both versions, then raising the resolution to 1080p shouldn't lower the framerate and so they'd both be 1080p.[/QUOTE] While a 100% increase in resolution isn't a 100% increase in GPU load (and it depends on whether you render everything at 1080p as well), it's a pretty big factor. If we discount the possibility that MS paid ubisoft to scale back the graphics, my guess is they couldn't get 900p to 60fps because of CPU bottlenecking, and they couldn't get 1080p at 30fps because the GPU load was too high. They didn't want tearing so they bumped it down to 30fps at 900p, but maybe with they some bumped up assets or terrain density or something. Now, this is just me building a case for Ubisoft here, chances are they simply have to meet a deadline, and it's easier to push out an update bumping up the PS4 version to 1080p.

[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;46168429]While a 100% increase in resolution isn't a 100% increase in GPU load (and it depends on whether you render everything at 1080p as well), it's a pretty big factor. If we discount the possibility that MS paid ubisoft to scale back the graphics, my guess is they couldn't get 900p to 60fps because of CPU bottlenecking, and they couldn't get 1080p at 30fps because the GPU load was too high. They didn't want tearing so they bumped it down to 30fps at 900p, but maybe with they some bumped up assets or terrain density or something. Now, this is just me building a case for Ubisoft here, chances are they simply have to meet a deadline, and it's easier to push out an update bumping up the PS4 version to 1080p.[/QUOTE] This, there are far too many factors at play in a game's engine to say that CPU performance isn't affected by resolution. Game engines are complex and generally have tons of things relying on others, even if they shouldn't. For example Arma 2 seems to make the CPU wait for a network response when online, so higher latency means lower framerate :v: [QUOTE=TheFilmSlacker;46166962]This shit is just like the bit wars in the 90s.[/QUOTE] But muh blast processing and Nintendon't

Ubisoft is really going for that worst company of the year award huh.

[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;46168429]While a 100% increase in resolution isn't a 100% increase in GPU load (and it depends on whether you render everything at 1080p as well), it's a pretty big factor. If we discount the possibility that MS paid ubisoft to scale back the graphics, my guess is they couldn't get 900p to 60fps because of CPU bottlenecking, and they couldn't get 1080p at 30fps because the GPU load was too high. They didn't want tearing so they bumped it down to 30fps at 900p, but maybe with they some bumped up assets or terrain density or something. Now, this is just me building a case for Ubisoft here, chances are they simply have to meet a deadline, and it's easier to push out an update bumping up the PS4 version to 1080p.[/QUOTE] I remember reading somewhere that the PS4's power advantage is conveniently the amount needed to run a 900p Xbone game at 1080p with the same performance as long as the assets and settings are the same. You bring up an interesting point, would people prefer their PS4 versions to have the same resolution as the Xbone, but with better visuals, or the same visuals at higher resolution? Maybe Ubisoft internal tests showed that people preferred same res with better visuals (assuming the PS4 version does has improved visuals) I'll still get it since I adore the AC games (except for AC3) hopefully they change their "parity" stance and patch it like Black Flag.

I'm beginning to suspect that Microsoft is paying/influencing Ubisoft to do this. It's well known that for many of the multiplat releases this year, the PS4 had 1080p while the Xbone had the upscaled 900p. AC4, BF4/Hardline, the new COD, MGS GZ, Shadow of Mordor, Thief, even the timed-Xbone exclusive Plants v Zombies.

[QUOTE=Yogkog;46168566]I'm beginning to suspect that Microsoft is paying/influencing Ubisoft to do this. It's well known that for many of the multiplat releases this year, the PS4 had 1080p while the Xbone had the upscaled 900p. AC4, BF4/Hardline, the new COD, MGS GZ, Shadow of Mordor, Thief, even the timed-Xbone exclusive Plants v Zombies.[/QUOTE] I wouldn't be so sure, it's entirely possible and I'd believe it if it were another developer, but it's also entirely possible that Ubisoft have just lazily ported it from one machine to the other. That explanation would be the least surprising after the shit they've pulled recently.

Yet another Assassin's Creed game I cannot wait to not buy. I've never understood the appeal of the games. They've struck me as very contrived and boring.

[QUOTE=Gubbinz96;46168776]Yet another Assassin's Creed game I cannot wait to not buy. I've never understood the appeal of the games. They've struck me as very contrived and boring.[/QUOTE] Maybe if it was actually challenging I'd consider it. Honestly, whats the point of a stealth based game when you can just run down and kill everyone in the entire town without getting hit once? Same thing with the new lord of the rings game. Add a difficulty setting for fucks sake.

Don't forget the new statement they made: [quote]We understand how Senior Producer Vincent Pontbriand's quotes have been misinterpreted. To set the record straight, we did not lower the specs for Assassin's Creed Unity to account for any one system over the other. Assassin's Creed Unity has been engineered from the ground up for next-generation consoles. Over the past 4 years, we have created Assassin's Creed Unity to attain the tremendous level of quality we have now achieved on Xbox One, PlayStation 4 and PC. It's a process of building up toward our goals, not scaling down, and we're proud to say that we have reached those goals on all SKUs. At no point did we decide to reduce the ambitions of any SKU. All benefited from the full dedication of all of our available optimization resources to help them reach the level of quality we have today with the core Assassin's Creed Unity experience.[/quote] [url]http://kotaku.com/ac-unity-will-have-same-specs-on-xbox-one-and-ps4-to-av-1643054770[/url] Never change Ubisoft, never change.

"misinterpreted" yeah sure

They did this to avoid debates between console performance? Now everyone is up in arms about this ridiculous shitfest.

[quote]the tremendous level of quality we have now achieved on Xbox One, PlayStation 4 and PC[/quote] PC version confirmed for 900p? :v: Also, I like how they call it a trememdous level of quality when they all look just as bad as each other.

[QUOTE=Mr_Razzums;46168978]Maybe if it was actually challenging I'd consider it. Honestly, whats the point of a stealth based game when you can just run down and kill everyone in the entire town without getting hit once? Same thing with the new lord of the rings game. Add a difficulty setting for fucks sake.[/QUOTE] According to the latest PCGamesN article on the Single Player, they actually have made combat harder. It's not just Ubi talking out of their ass (Hopefully). I would take into consideration however, that when they played it, it was on a trip on Ubi's expense. At least for gameplay according to what they've been saying, they've been listening to player's complaints.

[QUOTE=Clavus;46165833]Eh? Can't you just limit the updaterate of the AI logic then and still update the animations and other graphics at 60?[/QUOTE] Or they could bring back the "control crowd size" option from Assassin's Creed 1 and avoid a good chunk of the optimization problems we've been having since forever. If it really has to do with the AI of hundreds of ultimately insignificant NPCs on the screen, the obvious solution is to give us the option to have less characters spawned and therefore reduce the taxation on the CPU. [editline]6th October 2014[/editline] Or just straight up spawn less characters altogether. I really don't like the huge masses of crowds in the AssCreed games, and blending is one of the most unrealistic mechanics they've had since AC2. It's just a nuisance to deal with. [editline]fake merge lel[/editline] Or they could try making a game that utilizes more than one CPU core at a time. If they could just figure out how to make a multithreaded program, it might be easier to handle the hundreds of characters wandering aimlessly around the streets of [insert large city here] that serve no real purpose other than the aformentioned hacky blending mechanic.

That's weird, I remember neoGAF being fine when the PC version of watch_dogs was gimped.

[QUOTE=Untouch;46169206]That's weird, I remember neoGAF being fine when the PC version of watch_dogs was gimped.[/QUOTE] It's NeoGAF who cares what they think?

Consoles are designed to decrease issues like cpu bottlenecking graphics. For example, I bet ubi is running everything on one core if the AI was an issue.

let's not forget that they've already announced that they're deliberately handicapping the PC version of Far Cry 4 to make it identical to the PS4 and XB1 versions. basically every time ubisoft releases a game for the next 4 years you're going to be playing the xbox one version regardless of what platform you're on. also they probably are cpu bottlenecked, but not because the cpus aren't powerful enough, they seriously just don't know how to allocate processing power. every AC game from AC1 to black flag has had severe framerate problems on pc and every single time it was because the games weren't utilizing cpus properly. disabling 3 out of my 4 cores while playing AC4 brought me from 40 FPS to 37 FPS. let that sink in.

[QUOTE=Mr_Razzums;46168978]Maybe if it was actually challenging I'd consider it. Honestly, whats the point of a stealth based game when you can just run down and kill everyone in the entire town without getting hit once? Same thing with the new lord of the rings game. Add a difficulty setting for fucks sake.[/QUOTE] Unity removed the ability to chain your kills and I think it makes combat generally harder, so stealth is actually very important now.

To people talking about the PS4 running better, the PS4 and Xbone have almost identical CPUs and if they areally are CPU bound (which wouldn't shock me with how terrible the netbook CPUs are) then both consoles would have the same issue. Also, iirc the Xbone's CPU runs at a slightly higher clock speed too.

[QUOTE=CakeMaster7;46170073]To people talking about the PS4 running better, the PS4 and Xbone have almost identical CPUs and if they areally are CPU bound (which wouldn't shock me with how terrible the netbook CPUs are) then both consoles would have the same issue. Also, iirc the Xbone's CPU runs at a slightly higher clock speed too.[/QUOTE] The thing is, if it's CPU bottlenecked, then the PS4's GPU is just wasting cycles doing nothing if the graphics are the same as on the Xbone. Like say, the CPU is taking 30ms to do a frame while the gpu is taking 20ms a frame, wasted cycles. Increasing resolution shouldn't affect the AI or physics and other things handled by the CPU unless for some reason the CPU is doing visual rendering.

[QUOTE=CakeMaster7;46170073]To people talking about the PS4 running better, the PS4 and Xbone have almost identical CPUs and if they areally are CPU bound (which wouldn't shock me with how terrible the netbook CPUs are) then both consoles would have the same issue. Also, iirc the Xbone's CPU runs at a slightly higher clock speed too.[/QUOTE] 8 cores @ 1.6 Ghz for PS4 and 1.75 GHz for Xbox One. They are both pretty weak but at least should produce a push for better core usage by games, which will in turn benefit PC. Though the Wii U really takes the piss as far as processors go, it has 3 cores running @ 750MHz and is substantially outgunned by the PS3 and Xbox 360... [editline]7th October 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=CrimsonChin;46170484]The thing is, if it's CPU bottlenecked, then the PS4's GPU is just wasting cycles doing nothing if the graphics are the same as on the Xbone. Like say, the CPU is taking 30ms to do a frame while the gpu is taking 20ms a frame, wasted cycles. Increasing resolution shouldn't affect the AI or physics and other things handled by the CPU unless for some reason the CPU is doing visual rendering.[/QUOTE] Yeah, but if the CPU is really the limiting factor on fps (which it could well be), you are going to have the PS4 version with higher resolution and the Xbox One with more AI characters/denser crowds. Which isn't all a bad thing but keeping the 2 versions matching makes sense.

I can't wait to see how they fuck up The Division

[QUOTE=Dr.C;46170986]I can't wait to see how they fuck up The Division[/QUOTE]I'll cry if they do

[QUOTE=RenegadeCop;46170116]Sometimes when I run into computer troubles, I think to myself "Maybe I shouldn't of spent $1,200 dollars to get the full gaming experience.. Maybe I should've bought a console.." And then Ubisoft really solidifies my PC purchase. Thank you, Ubisoft.[/QUOTE] The PC version most likely isn't going to fare much better, if it runs at all. This is Ubisoft we're talking about here.

[QUOTE=AlexConnor;46170931]8 cores @ 1.6 Ghz for PS4 and 1.75 GHz for Xbox One. They are both pretty weak but at least should produce a push for better core usage by games, which will in turn benefit PC. Though the Wii U really takes the piss as far as processors go, it has 3 cores running @ 750MHz and is substantially outgunned by the PS3 and Xbox 360... [editline]7th October 2014[/editline] Yeah, but if the CPU is really the limiting factor on fps (which it could well be), you are going to have the PS4 version with higher resolution and the Xbox One with more AI characters/denser crowds. Which isn't all a bad thing but keeping the 2 versions matching makes sense.[/QUOTE] The Wii U CPU actually has a peak frequency of around 1.24GHz, and Power typically has higher IPC than x86 clock for clock. It's obviously not up there with the Xbox One and PS4 but it's not quite as horrible as you make it look.

It's bad enough PC is held back because consoles are a dominating force that they want to also develop for, which they can now stop doing since the PS4 and even the Xbox One is capable of some pretty gnarly shit, but it's completely unacceptable to hold back the new consoles as well because of the old ones. Fucking Gran Turismo 4 on playstation 2 ran at 60 FPS at 1080. But you're telling me the new Assassin's Creed can't do that on current gen or PC? And that the reason for it is because you don't want to hurt the 10 year old consoles' feelings? Guys, I have a great idea for a game, but so many people still own an N64, we have to ensure everyone has the same experience. While we're at it, there's no point in making a movie in a resolution higher than 352x480 since VHS tapes can't really do higher, it's alright since video can play at any resolution on the new mediums, though. How much sense would it make to release a movie onto Blu-Ray at 352x480 because you were also releasing it to VHS. Does that make fucking sense to anyone

[QUOTE=AlexConnor;46170931]8 cores @ 1.6 Ghz for PS4 and 1.75 GHz for Xbox One. They are both pretty weak but at least should produce a push for better core usage by games, which will in turn benefit PC. Though the Wii U really takes the piss as far as processors go, it has 3 cores running @ 750MHz and is substantially outgunned by the PS3 and Xbox 360... [editline]7th October 2014[/editline] Yeah, but if the CPU is really the limiting factor on fps (which it could well be), you are going to have the PS4 version with higher resolution and the Xbox One with more AI characters/denser crowds. Which isn't all a bad thing but keeping the 2 versions matching makes sense.[/QUOTE] It's worth mentioning that neither console has all 8 cores usable anyway

[QUOTE=meppers;46165685]Ubisoft is worse than EA. this is no longer an opinion. You can not refute this.[/QUOTE]Ubisoft is the French EA. :v:

[QUOTE=KillerJaguar;46166289][b]But[/b] I will say that Ubisoft is the most willing to take risks with new IPs and innovate with good ideas [/QUOTE] Yeah, like that one time they said they would keep on pumping Assassins Creed titles every year because there was money to be made there. At this time, they are almost worse than Activision. [sp]I will never let that go[/sp]