Ubisoft on 900p: "Ubisoft Does Not Constrain Its Games"

[Shamanic Rhythm]

"We don't constrain our games, except when we do." Do they even read their own press releases?

Why exactly do they need to cram it full of more NPCs? All they do is get in the fucking way when you're trying to run from the guards or chase down a quarry. This is one area where I would happily forgo some 'realism' to make the game more playable.

 

[Flammablezeus]

At least Revelations runs in 60fps. AC3 did too, but then 60fps doesn't mean much when the "game" is too unstable to actually run properly on top of being completely simplified even more than it was after the first game.

Seriously, if there were any decent AC games, they've had their time in the sun. They're still there for us to enjoy, but there's really no point in getting any of the games in the series after Revelations.

 

[FalloutJack]

I'd be angry if I wasn't so tired and beat down by listening to this same drivel every time.

We need to burn down the games industry, salt the earth it's currently on, and come back again in a decade or two to start again.

That's a terrible idea. We need to burn down the parts of the industry that don't deserve to survive and let the good ones rake in the bucks. (To wit, hardly anyone ever complains about Atlus, so why should THEY burn?)

 

[Grabehn]

This is just fucking ridiculous, HOW are they still trying to change what their guy said prior to this, and no one told him to not say something as stupid as "we LOCKED it to avoid debates".

I mean, I stopped caring about AC since Brotherhood was a thing, but even then, Ubi might as well just fire their PR people, tell them all to just shut up and focus on making games and not interviews. Since I've heard they haven't come up with a "dreadful" game for a while, but are their bad rep comes from people talking too much or saying something stupid.

Captcha: Who is it?

I dunno captcha, I don't fuckin' know.

 

[Gamer87]

LOL at the news DA:I is 900p on X-box One and 1080p on PS4.

On a side note I can't believe the new generation consoles released last year was worse than my, at the time, 2-year old PC. One would think they would future proof them a bit considering last generation lasted for 7 years.

When the new generation already barely lived up to an old mid price range PC, just think how outdated they will be in six years, or even two!

Facepalm. This is why I don't console and I'm genuinely sad for those who do. No being condescending, just unbelieving how bad things are.

 

[major_chaos]

I don't understand why this is an issue, why did they even need to make a statement about this. I guess its because I gamed for years on a shitty hand-me-down Compaq that was never meant for gaming so 30FPS/900p seems wonderful compared to my childhood of 15FPS/240p. Or just that I don't give a shit about graphics or framerates as long as they hit a stable 30. But it seems a very large part of the site is either upper middle class PCMR or part of the graphics and FPS obsessed crowd I refer to as "the Biscuit Mafia".

 

[Metalrocks]

not a console gamer but from what i have read, PS4 is better than xbone. also think that M$ payed them off just to sell more of their crappy console. wasting money on tomb raider, minecraft and now AC. M$ is really desperate.
but ubi is also not an angel and comes up with crappy excuses to bring out their games. i did get watch dogs last week and it sure suffers from performance issues. constant freezing for more then 5 secs. very frustrating. at times when i can move again it freezes again for another 5 sec.
im wondering how unity will be on pc. so far none of the AC games on pc were unplayable or had any major issues. so i still have some hope there.

 

[Strazdas]

Ubisoft anounces its going to limit its game, claims its not limiting its games.

we would never do anything to intentionally diminish anything we've produced or developed."

you keep saying that, but you keep doing the opposite.

"We decided to lock them at the same specs to avoid all the debates and stuff."

ironic, considering this sentence caused far more debates than you could have expected. also downgrading your games to "Avoid debates" is a ridiculous concept. like, pants-on-head retarded level ridiculous.

"Considering the sheer number of pixels that are being moved around at all times - which affects both the CPU and GPU - that's a significant achievement, especially as Assassin's Creed Unity will release when the new-gen consoles are barely more than a year old."

ah, yes, the significant achievement that people achieved somewhere in 1996. wait, what year is it?
And the fact that it releases while the consoles are young and pwoerful should actually mean it has HIGHER resolution than in the future. as later resolution and framerate gets sacrificed for fancier textures. but there is nothing left to sacrifice at launch now.

"Ubisoft does not constrain its games,"

Nice Watchdogs "Who cares it's PC" Edition fuckwits.

To be fair the who cares its PC note in the comments of code was misunderstood. the code it commented was for Xbox, and the comment basically mean "who cares, its PC version, its not going to run this code anyway" if you look at the full file it basically checks whitch system it runs at and if its xbox it runs one code and if PC another, and the comment basically said that the Xbox part of code is unimportant in the PC version since its never going to run it.

display a bluescreen with "lawl buy xbawx pc luzer" on it.

you know i now want to make a fake BSOD like that. run it on fullscreen game. bam - instant karma.

I don't understand why this is an issue, why did they even need to make a statement about this. I guess its because I gamed for years on a shitty hand-me-down Compaq that was never meant for gaming so 30FPS/900p seems wonderful compared to my childhood of 15FPS/240p. Or just that I don't give a shit about graphics or framerates as long as they hit a stable 30. But it seems a very large part of the site is either upper middle class PCMR or part of the graphics and FPS obsessed crowd I refer to as "the Biscuit Mafia".

Just because you are indifferent of framerate and resolution benefits does not make them somehow unimportant. however your insults makes me think your just jealous rather than indifferent, otherwise why go to such lengths as to invent insults against groups you disagree with?

 

[smithy_2045]

I don't understand why this is an issue, why did they even need to make a statement about this. I guess its because I gamed for years on a shitty hand-me-down Compaq that was never meant for gaming so 30FPS/900p seems wonderful compared to my childhood of 15FPS/240p. Or just that I don't give a shit about graphics or framerates as long as they hit a stable 30. But it seems a very large part of the site is either upper middle class PCMR or part of the graphics and FPS obsessed crowd I refer to as "the Biscuit Mafia".

Just because you are indifferent of framerate and resolution benefits does not make them somehow unimportant. however your insults makes me think your just jealous rather than indifferent, otherwise why go to such lengths as to invent insults against groups you disagree with?

I've never refused to play a game because it didn't have enough pixels. I've never decided to not buy a game because it didn't run at enough fps. As long as it runs at a constant frame rate and you can see what's going on, neither of those things matter all that much.

 

[Blacklight28]

You know, I'm starting to have trouble remembering which pile of bullshit leaked out of which triple A company's mouth. I swear all I hear from anyone of the giants these days is brain-dead excuses of why reductions, cuts and laziness is actually a really great thing for us customers!

 

[clippen05]

Seeing these articles now makes me laugh at all the people who cried 'optimisation' whenever people argue consoles against PCs. Clearly, optimisation is bringing results guys. 900p is something to be proud of, its better than 720p of last generation. Maybe the next wave of consoles can finally make it to 1080p, by which point everyone will be using 1440 as the new standard.

 

[clippen05]

I don't understand why this is an issue, why did they even need to make a statement about this. I guess its because I gamed for years on a shitty hand-me-down Compaq that was never meant for gaming so 30FPS/900p seems wonderful compared to my childhood of 15FPS/240p. Or just that I don't give a shit about graphics or framerates as long as they hit a stable 30. But it seems a very large part of the site is either upper middle class PCMR or part of the graphics and FPS obsessed crowd I refer to as "the Biscuit Mafia".

Ok, you don't care about graphics. That's fine. But sure, let's just belittle everyone who does care about them. It's not like people might want their entertainment to improve in quality? No, heaven forbid we let people have preferences about how resources are spent in a game's development. Heaven forbid people actually want improvement, rather than stagnation.

 

[major_chaos]

Just because you are indifferent of framerate and resolution benefits does not make them somehow unimportant.

No, but the fact that they have no impact on the overall quality of the game does.

insults

Insult, singular. "upper middle class" isn't an insult, and PCMR stopped being a put down when people started using it unironicaly to describe themselves. And for that matter "graphics obsessed" is more of an observation than an insult.

makes me think your just jealous rather than indifferent

*rolleyes* I own a ~$1200 gaming set up, I can do the 1080p/60fps thing, the hand me down Compaq was ten years ago. I just find the attitude some people have about it nauseating. The very idea that you think I'm so small and bitter that I would be "jealous" over marginally better graphics on PC is a far more venomous insult then anything I intended to convey with my post.

Heaven forbid people actually want improvement, rather than stagnation.

Oh I want improvement, but I want in areas that matter: better AI, new destruction/physics engines, more entities on screen and interacting at once, decals and debris that don't instantly fade, deeper combat systems, persistent locational damage, ect. That's what I want, but what I get is fucking tressFX. Because all the publishers care about and all the majority of players see is the continuing effort to make things shinier and make up new lighting effects for me to instantly turn off. I would rather see a game look like its from 2009 than see anything that could effect gameplay in any way sacrificed.

 

[Evonisia]

I guess Ubisoft is still in the denial stage to their fuck up. Hell, the Wii U version of Watch_Dogs isn't even out yet and we know it's in shambles compared to the One/PS4 version and the PC/360/PS3 versions are just either poorly optimised or trimmed down to accommodate their inferior-to-Rockstar sandbox producing abilities.

We know it's bullshit, Ubisoft, you don't have to explain why you've fucked us if it doesn't explain why you fucked us.

 

[JET1971]

The scale of the buildings does NOT affect framerates. It is the same textures and same poly count. Scale of buildings is more of an aesthetic issue. 1:1 scale can look too big in a game so often they are scaled down to be visually more pleasing.

 

[devotedsniper]

Maybe I've been a pc gamer for too long now but surely if you can't achieve 1080p at 30fps theres something seriously wrong with these consoles? I thought the entire point of this generation was to make it easier to develop for by being as close to pc as possible, so why is it so hard to even achieve a basic 1080 30fps spec when a pc of similar spec could easily achieve this.

I'm in no way a graphics whore but come on this should be a basic thing by now, especially for something as closed as an environment as a console, there's nothing to take into account like operating systems, hardware differences, software or anything like that.

 

[Fursnake]

Fine Ubisoft, you don't constrain your games...you just gimp them a little bit.

 

[Strazdas]

I don't understand why this is an issue, why did they even need to make a statement about this. I guess its because I gamed for years on a shitty hand-me-down Compaq that was never meant for gaming so 30FPS/900p seems wonderful compared to my childhood of 15FPS/240p. Or just that I don't give a shit about graphics or framerates as long as they hit a stable 30. But it seems a very large part of the site is either upper middle class PCMR or part of the graphics and FPS obsessed crowd I refer to as "the Biscuit Mafia".

Just because you are indifferent of framerate and resolution benefits does not make them somehow unimportant. however your insults makes me think your just jealous rather than indifferent, otherwise why go to such lengths as to invent insults against groups you disagree with?

I've never refused to play a game because it didn't have enough pixels. I've never decided to not buy a game because it didn't run at enough fps. As long as it runs at a constant frame rate and you can see what's going on, neither of those things matter all that much.

Once again just because you chose to be indifferent does not make the benefits dissapear. jesus, do you even read what you quote?

No, but the fact that they have no impact on the overall quality of the game does.

You laughable "Facts" Severely lacking citation.

The very idea that you think I'm so small and bitter that I would be "jealous" over marginally better graphics on PC is a far more venomous insult then anything I intended to convey with my post.

why else would you try to belittle everyone that thinks graphics are important then?

. Because all the publishers care about and all the majority of players see is the continuing effort to make things shinier and make up new lighting effects for me to instantly turn off. I would rather see a game look like its from 2009 than see anything that could effect gameplay in any way sacrificed.

heres the thing: why not both?.

Your "1200 dollar gaming set up" is more than capable of doing both.

 

[major_chaos]

You laughable "Facts" Severely lacking citation.

Enlighten me as to how SSAO or DoF have ever made for a better game on any level other than the visual one.

why else would you try to belittle everyone that thinks graphics are important then?

Because they are silly, their goals are directly opposite mine, and I like to shout contrary things into predictable echo chambers?

.heres the thing: why not both?.

Because:
a. time, money, and team members are all limited resources and they are going to be spent on what devs think people will notice and care about, which, currently is graphics.
b. Processing power is limited. Games cant be built on the expectation that everyone is going to have TotalBiscut's dual titan monstrosity, and the more power you are using on shiny crap, the less is left over for the things I want to see done.

Your "1200 dollar gaming set up" is more than capable of doing both.

Better rigs than mine struggle to hold consistent framerates with new tech like TressFX or whatever that one option in TW2 was called, and you think publishers can do that and have hundreds of NPCs interacting at once and still have a reasonable power expectation? I doubt it.
I also get the feeling you don't believe that I have a gaming PC, which is amusing.

 

[Strazdas]

Enlighten me as to how SSAO or DoF have ever made for a better game on any level other than the visual one.

You were the one making a claim it doesnt matter, shouldnt you be the one providing evidence?
ANyway, DoF is crap and is right there with motion blur in "things to turn off after installing new game".

SSAO however is useful on gameplay level. for example in a game with open enviroment it can be used to hide in dinamic shadows or spot other players from their shadow to the point of knowing which side they are looking at. it also helps a lot with gametime in games where time progression exists.

Because they are silly, their goals are directly opposite mine, and I like to shout contrary things into predictable echo chambers?

so you intentionally come here to get people angry by shouting contrary things just because they like different things? thats pretty mean of you.

Because:
a. time, money, and team members are all limited resources and they are going to be spent on what devs think people will notice and care about, which, currently is graphics.
b. Processing power is limited. Games cant be built on the expectation that everyone is going to have TotalBiscut's dual titan monstrosity, and the more power you are using on shiny crap, the less is left over for the things I want to see done.

A) in part yes. however new engines, for example UE4 have most of graphical things mapped to automatic. you create models, textures and the engine handles the rest. you do know that a person who makes textures isnt the same person who codes AI, right? their jobs are not interchangable, game devs are not some omnipotent beings.
B) processing power is limited, on consoles. PC processing power is increasing almost exponentially. it has easily surpassed the point where we can have both already at decent levels. and its going to be even higher as time goes on.

You know i want all the things you listed, reactive enviroments, persistent particles, good AI, but i realize that thats not all videogames are. And i realize we CAN do both.

TressFX is crap, no denying that, and TW2 was a disaster in how it was coded (it wasnt graphically intensive, it was just leaking all over so much it crashed on itself). few bad apples does not mean every apple is spoiled though. for example Metro games were made on what is consdered a very small budget nowadays, is one of the most graphically impressive games out and yet manages to have engaging story and AI (which reviewers praised it for).

Hachind hundreds of NPCs is easy. Seriuos Sam did it in 2001. Having hundreds of NPCs that are SMART is hard. so far no game managed that. AC:Unity claims it will, but im not willing to believe it before i see it. thing is, AI needs a lot of memory (RAM), but little processing time. the resources it uses are very different than those graphics use and in fact resources AI would use for vast majority of people stand half-idle while gaming. Gaming became so GPU heavy that most peoples CPUs go up to half load when gaming, and AI is very much a CPU beast.

Oh, i believe you have a gaming PC, i just think you underestimate it.