Given the specs you need, it seems that they could have done a better job optimising it. But then again, it is Ubisoft.Bob_McMillan said:
The Divison PC Port Was Kept "In Check" With Consoles, Says Ubisoft
- Thread starter Steven Bogos
- Start date
I knew it. Only a matter of time before games offered graphical settings on consoles... the beginning of the end.
Ah, but see, that doesn't get all the hits by enraging the PC elitist crowd.Estarc said:
Yeah, there isn't really much to see here. Another day, another standard PC port. We've already seen the beta, so it's already pretty obvious that it's a pretty game, and it's a Ubisoft game on PC, so don't expect great optimization. Not exactly treading new ground.
So what if the graphics budget was instead spent on further polishing gameplay systems, optimization, networking, what if the game had worse graphics but ran at 60fps on consoles while supporting a much larger pool of PC hardware, that's what MGS5 did and by all accounts that game looks fantastic, if less time and money was spent on graphics, maybe the playable area could be larger, more diverse or actually ready by release.
Is anyone else thinking this?
Is anyone else thinking this?
Each platform plays on their own service, right? Xbox is on Xbox Live, PS/4 on PSN, right? So why worry about graphic disparities? If everyone was battling on the same server, I can see the need to keep graphics similar. But with each platform playing against players on the same platform--allow the PC to have best possible graphics. You would have thought ubiSoft learned their lesson about monkeying with PC graphics on WatchDog.
Oh so it's "unfair" for the pc version to look too much better than the consoles huh
I thought the goal was to make it look as good as possible within whatever limitations you have. I'm going to interpret this as "we didn't have the resources or desire to do the benchmarking."
I thought the goal was to make it look as good as possible within whatever limitations you have. I'm going to interpret this as "we didn't have the resources or desire to do the benchmarking."
Disappointing, but not terribly surprising. I guess Ubisoft doesn't like money, as this bad PR will make many PC gamers think twice about purchasing this game at full price. They would have been far better off keeping quiet about this decision. That said, I think we all know this is not an uncommon practice, and will get worse as the gap between new PC hardware and this generation of consoles continues to grow.
However, looking at the benchmarks for the beta, most PC gamers will probably be working their rigs pretty hard at max settings. The flagship cards and dual-GPU configs that can produce significantly more than 60fps at 1080p are really only a sensible purchase if you have a 1440p or 4k monitor. Although, the fact that the GTX 980 Ti is only getting 48 fps at 1440p would suggest that the game, or at least the beta, is terribly optimised. As usual, new driver profiles will probably resolve most performance issues. DX12 cannot come soon enough as devs will have far fewer excuses for releasing poorly optimised ports.
http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2462638
However, looking at the benchmarks for the beta, most PC gamers will probably be working their rigs pretty hard at max settings. The flagship cards and dual-GPU configs that can produce significantly more than 60fps at 1080p are really only a sensible purchase if you have a 1440p or 4k monitor. Although, the fact that the GTX 980 Ti is only getting 48 fps at 1440p would suggest that the game, or at least the beta, is terribly optimised. As usual, new driver profiles will probably resolve most performance issues. DX12 cannot come soon enough as devs will have far fewer excuses for releasing poorly optimised ports.
http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2462638
What I don't understand is why Ubisoft hates the PC platform so much. They claim it's a platform solely used by pirates but just take a look at the number of reviews and copies sold on Steam for Ubisoft games. They're probably some of the most popular titles (setting aside CS:GO, DOTA, etc). IT's a vicious cycle. Ubi doesn't want to make a good port so PC gamers get upset and talk shit, so Ubi is less inclined to make a good port next time due to the negative feedback.
OT: Not surprised. This is typical Ubi behavior. Besides, what's the point of them making their games look even better when they can't optimize them at the settings they have now? Most recent Ubi games have recommended settings of a 970 or higher. There's absolutely no way most of their games should take that much brute force to run well when they've been kept within striking distance of the console versions just to keep everyone (except pc players) happy. I don't bother getting excited for Ubisoft games anymore. Even Rainbow Six Siege, which by all accounts was a pretty decent game, had terrible server issues at launch with people not getting their xp and getting stuck at loading screens.
I dunno. I built a PC because I was hoping for a better, more polished experience but far too often I found myself getting the shitty end of the stick. I guess I could always play Dark Souls again...
OT: Not surprised. This is typical Ubi behavior. Besides, what's the point of them making their games look even better when they can't optimize them at the settings they have now? Most recent Ubi games have recommended settings of a 970 or higher. There's absolutely no way most of their games should take that much brute force to run well when they've been kept within striking distance of the console versions just to keep everyone (except pc players) happy. I don't bother getting excited for Ubisoft games anymore. Even Rainbow Six Siege, which by all accounts was a pretty decent game, had terrible server issues at launch with people not getting their xp and getting stuck at loading screens.
I dunno. I built a PC because I was hoping for a better, more polished experience but far too often I found myself getting the shitty end of the stick. I guess I could always play Dark Souls again...
Exactly. I don't give them money anymore. I refuse to install UPlay. It doesn't hurt that I dislike most of their games, but I do sort of wish I could play Farcry 4 sometimes.RebornKusabi said:
The YouTube video is literally embedded into the article. I don't know how to make this any clearer... My source for the video was NeoGAF hence why NeoGAF has the source credit, but the video is already a part of the article.MC1980 said:
That's some seriously flawed logic on Ubisoft's part.
Not that I think they would spend the extra time and money to make the best PC port they could anyway.
Not that I think they would spend the extra time and money to make the best PC port they could anyway.
Even though I was never interested in this game to begin with, I guess I should be livid about this ass-hattery.
I should be, but I'm... not. I'm actually quite tickled by this. And you know why?
Because I can already anticipate laughing through tears as Jim F*cking Sterling Son swoops in and rips Ubi to shreds over this latest fumble. Thank God for him.
I should be, but I'm... not. I'm actually quite tickled by this. And you know why?
Because I can already anticipate laughing through tears as Jim F*cking Sterling Son swoops in and rips Ubi to shreds over this latest fumble. Thank God for him.
Aaaaaand there goes my interest like a stone in a pond. They intentionally release a shitty port to a superior platform for the sake of parity, they can peddle to the consoles because this PC gamer isn't buying. Limiting my experience to the console version of a game with the lower frame rates, low FoV, fewer post processing options and lower quality textures is the most sure way to assure I won't be buying.
A publisher keeps the PC version sub-optimal to be on par with the console version. I'm no longer surprised. But at least Ubisoft no longer insults its consumers' intelligence by trying to cover it up. Now if they only get rid of UPlay...
PS: Oh, and by the way. If you are porting for PC and you have the resources, you definitely should make it as good as possible. There were several of multiplatforms in the past generation that included the Wii, and no one said it was unfair that the XBOX 360 and PS3 versions were way better.
PS: Oh, and by the way. If you are porting for PC and you have the resources, you definitely should make it as good as possible. There were several of multiplatforms in the past generation that included the Wii, and no one said it was unfair that the XBOX 360 and PS3 versions were way better.
See, this is the mentality of the big AAA developers: why spend the money on polishing and perfecting a PC port (or game for that matter) when your fanbase and modding community are going to do it for you and free of charge? Bethesda gets away with this shit all the time. Ubisoft just wants that slice of that pie, too.Elfgore said:
I will gladly admit, as a console gamer, that PCs will ultimately have the superior hardware and software for gaming. However, as long as developers have this kind of mindset and intention, we might as well call the playing fields even; in some VERY bad cases, skewed towards consoles.