Top
70°

Jimquisition Ubisoft - A Sad History of PC Failures

Oh Ubisoft, will you never not give us material? Following a recent Watch Dogs PC controversy, Jimquisition looks at Ubi's recent history of being terrible at computer games.

Read Full Story >>
escapistmagazine.com
The story is too old to be commented.
F4sterTh4nFTL1245d ago

Ubisoft make great games but they absolutely suck at managing everything else.

randomass1711245d ago

Ubisoft also has a terrible track record with release history. They tend to release their niche games around the same time as heavy AAA releases.

extermin8or1245d ago

Well I've made the mistake of buying a couple of ubisofts games on pc before- but realised my error now enjoy them all on console and they tend to work just fine :) shame they can't release an unbroken pc game but the games are very good so I'm not going to miss out on them....

F4sterTh4nFTL1245d ago (Edited 1245d ago )

Even "broken" PC versions are still better than the console versions:

All Far Cry games are clearly better on PC (Far Cry 3 is an almost perfect PC Game)

All Assassins Creed games better on PC, (especially AC III & AC IV looked stunning on high end PCs)

All Splinter Cell games better on PC (Quicksave)

All Rainbow Six/Ghost Recon games better on PC (Mouse/Keyboard better for tactical shooters)

Despite a few issues Watch Dogs is still better on PC

The Division will be better on PC

List goes on. Ubisoft gets the hate but they are not that bad, it is just they made some bad decisions that have backfired on them instead of getting the result they wanted.

Th3o1245d ago

Don't forget this is completely up for debate as to what is good and bad.

Assassin's Creed 4 could simply not be played on my laptop (alienware 14 with 765m) not even at 720p Even turning down certain settings did nothing...even though I could max out AC 3 no problem.

It took me installing it on my Desktop that I found playable frames.

If I only had my alienware (which for a while I did because I was in school) I wouldve rather bought if for my ps4.

Splinter cell games have been up and down. The first 3 were amazing but double agent and conviction were absolutely dreadful (especially running on mainstream PC).

Most rainbow 6 games were fine on PC but not without their problems.

Now take watch dogs, it was terrible on pc. My laptop or Desktop the game ran like crap it would take a heavy decrease in graphics to get it to 60 fps.

Let me just put this simple in terms of my opinion. IF I have to run the game at 30 fps on PC to make it stable (let's say I didn't have high end PC) then I would rather get it for PS4. Easy and no brainer.

Not only will the game be an easy play (no install, no hassle no optimizing) but it also has a resale value. So I can sell the game after I'm done.

So please give credit where there is, and trust me Ubisoft sucks. Their Devs for PC are most likely high school Computer Science Drop outs or possibly worse.

Sy_Wolf1245d ago

Farcry is a Ubisoft game, Crytek sold it after 1. Also you're confusing better graphics with better game. They are not the same at all.

starchild1245d ago

@Th3o

The vast majority of Ubisoft games have run perfectly fine for me. AC3, AC4 and Watch Dogs are the exceptions and they really aren't that bad at all. They still look much better than any console version and run at higher framerates.

And I'm sorry but if the argument is, "I can't run this at a solid 60fps so I'm just going to get it on a console"...well, I find that to be absolutely irrational and nonsensical.

I'll take my PC version of Watch Dogs running at 2048 x 1152 resolution, with better shadow quality, better ambient occlusion, better texture filtering and vastly better anti-aliasing running at a solid 30fps over the PS4 version (even though I own a PS4 and that is certainly an option) which is inferior in all those areas and only runs at 900p/30fps and still has occasional screen tearing.

Honestly you just sound like a console fanboy making excuses. Ubisoft games are some of the most graphically advanced games I have played on PC and the vast majority of them run just fine. In many cases they are demanding simply because they are very graphically advanced and are doing things most other games are not.

extermin8or1245d ago (Edited 1245d ago )

@FasterThanFTL well I'm going to have to completely disagree: Farcry 3 was great on my ps3 2 weeks after launch for 20 pounds thanks t an xmas sale :) All assassins creed games I much prefer on console but tbh the difference tends to be minimal exception is AC3 which was buggy on everything-and AC4 on a high end pc and AC4 on ps4 I saw like no difference... splinter Cell games are the ones I own on pc but I've played soe on console and the game didn't change sigificantly minus better graphics. I can't stand mouse and eyboard for anything but RTS games and such so thats irrelevant for Rainbow six. The Division will have the same gameplay on both, and seeing as PC support was announced/decided upon last I wouldn't be too sure it'll be any better than the other two. Watch_Dogs is a fun game with slightly etter graphics on PC and the ability to unlock the bggy but noticeably better graphics: but the ps4 version was clearly also downgraded from what was being shown as late as last october so... :/ Also multiplayer games on PC I' not a fan of I mean I love steam but it's just not the same plus I get distracted by other things on pc so I still stand that if you have such an issue with PC games made by ubisoft get them on pc because 9/10 times the differences are superficial and the games are well worth playing.
Oh and just to add I honestly cannot tell the difference between frame rates bar say 30 fps vs 60fps I can tell the difference slightly but nothing that bothers me. And I've been trying for a while now to really try and identify the difference I just can't (and I have perfect 20:20 vision according to optician last time I went a couple of months back...)

Th3o1244d ago (Edited 1244d ago )

@starchild

You're missing the point of my argument. I stated that if I personally cannot run it as 60 fps and I have to tweak the graphics settings in order to run the game well (I stated that if I didn't have a high end PC, just a midrange like my laptop) then I'd rather just get it for consoles...

I don't understand what exactly is irrational and nonsensical about that?

P.S

If I were a console fanboy I would have a near 2 grand system optimized for gaming and I wouldn't have a 10 year orld and 7 year old Steam account with 500+ games.

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 1244d ago
Axecution1245d ago

Good rant, learned a few things.

But it'd be a lot easier to take seriously if he wasn't swearing so much. The constant swearing just makes him sound immature...

randomass1711245d ago

Coincidentally he once did a video rant on how gamers being immature has led to a lot of good things happening in the industry. :P

SaturdayNightBeaver1245d ago

Sad indeed, for a company of its scale. Having over 500 people working on one game, and having a whole separate teams working on PC version alone (ubi Kiev in case of AC 3-4) , and still not being able to release a proper optimized product.

Seafort1245d ago

I think that's the problem. Ubisoft have got too big for purpose.

In other words it's not a good thing to have massive teams of developers on each game as communication breaks down and things get missed or forgotten.

Their excuse for not adding female characters in AC Unity is just complete BS.

The Watch Dogs delay shouldn't have happened and I think something went wrong in management for the delay to happen.

Their games don't get finished any earlier having 1000+ people working on their games compared to some smaller developers they are normally much later due to the massive size of each team.

hafitz1245d ago

the idea why they sucked because of parity, they didnt enhanced the PC version like they should aside from HBAO+, TXAA and a half baked physx on 1080p - 4k res..

With the power of PC, GRAPHICS is a must, so doesn't mean they input it, it's good...we all know that PC is more than capable of handling graphics itself..

Since the Windows 95 Games, PC Games have better graphics than on consoles except for few exceptions like Splinter Cell Double Agent. But what we really need is deeper gameplay, bigger levels, more skins varieties, better calculation of physics and A.I levels and noticeable graphic differences> Meaning, i dont have to pause a video and compare it side by side to notice the difference. it should be noticeable right away when the comparison is in motion. They will get my full respect if the gameplay is different on the PC than on the console.

starchild1245d ago

That's completely unrealistic and shows a clear lack of understanding about the realities of game development.

extermin8or1245d ago

When the ytend to make more money on AAA games on consoles why would they spend more making a superior pc version that will likely sell less/make less money. Talk about being entitled...

uth111245d ago

^ And be pirated like mad

Sure the capabilities of the PC have always been better than consoles. But it's all the little things that make it a miserable gaming experience. Driver issues, crashes, Need to reinstall this or that to make a game work (direct X, .net, etc). Spyware, virus. Stupid things like dllhost consuming all your CPU in the background and only respawn if you kill them..

I used to game on my PC, I lost interest in trying after all the BS above and more.

Show all comments (19)